Future of ISS after 2020 (or whenever)

[Peter Fairbrother]

Suppose the ISS pratnership breaks up in 2020.

If someone wanted to continue using the station after then - either one
of the original contributors like US, ESA or Russia, or someone like
SpaceX or Boeing or maybe some Chinese version of those - would they
need the approval of the pratnership?

How would that be done, legally speaking?


Or will it just be deorbited -

- though that is technically pretty hard to do safely?


-- Peter Fairbrother

[David Spain]

Peter why don't you ask some hard questions? heh

I think the legal issues could be settled quickly once that particular player (lets say Russia for the sake of argument) is off the hook for de-orbit or any legal responsibility thereupon.

To some extent, since Russia has already publicly mentioned that it is considering a de-commit to the ISS in the 2020-2025 timeframe there was some speculation here about what it would take to detach Zarya, Zevezda and directly attached ancillary modules at the Unity 1 PMA1. The question is what could be orbited to replace them? With SLS draining away NASA's budget the question becomes if there is a commercial player willing to step up with a replacement. The problem being Zarya provides the station keeping required to keep ISS on-orbit. It's replacement would not be easy and replacing the Russian modules with American/ESA/JAXA or a commercial space player will not be easy nor cheap.

Perhaps one of the biggest in-orbit assembly projects ever tackled. With SLS draining away NASA resources and budget this just doesn't look like it's in the cards. More evidence IMHO that SLS is more about jobs (US) than about space.

Perhaps it will be more cost effective to just replace the whole system with inflatable Bigelow modules when the time comes? Or maybe a commercial player with strike a deal with the Russians to buy the modules as is? Question then becomes how to you replace the Progress missions needed to support the Russian modules? You either have to come up with your own answer to Progress or contract it out to the Russians to have them continue.

I am opposed to a de-orbit of ISS without first partial in-space disassembly. Perhaps disposable cargo modules could be attached to ISS parts to effect an orderly de-orbit.

However my REAL preference would be a final fueling mission to Zarya (assuming it can provide sufficient boost) to place the ISS into a final parking orbit at L4/L5 where station keeping isn't needed and it can be used for parts or a boot-camp when the time comes to put something there. That probably requires a great deal of remote control that doesn't exist today either. But IMHO it would be worth sending up a separate boost module to accomplish exactly that. Perhaps NASA could build it around the upper stage in the works today for the presumed SLS asteroid mission.

[Rick Jones]

David Spain <david....@gmail.com> wrote:
> However my REAL preference would be a final fueling mission to Zarya
> (assuming it can provide sufficient boost) to place the ISS into a
> final parking orbit at L4/L5 where station keeping isn't needed and
> it can be used for parts or a boot-camp when the time comes to put
> something there.

"Welcome to the Uber-Hazy L4 Annex of the Smithsonian Air and Space
Museum. On your left you see the International Space Station ... "

rick jones
--
The glass is neither half-empty nor half-full. The glass has a leak.
The real question is "Can it be patched?"
these opinions are mine, all mine; HP might not want them anyway... :)
feel free to post, OR email to rick.jones2 in hp.com but NOT BOTH...

[Greg (Strider) Moore]

"David Spain" wrote in message
news:1ac2eeae-b0c7-434b...@googlegroups.com...

>
>Peter why don't you ask some hard questions? heh
>
>I think the legal issues could be settled quickly once that particular
>player (lets say Russia for the sake of argument) is off the hook for
>de-orbit or any legal responsibility thereupon.
>
>To some extent, since Russia has already publicly mentioned that it is
>considering a de-commit to the ISS in the 2020-2025 timeframe there was
>some speculation here about what it would take to detach Zarya, Zevezda and
>directly attached ancillary modules at the Unity 1 PMA1. The question is
>what could be orbited to replace them? With SLS draining away NASA's budget
>the question becomes if there is a commercial player willing to step up
>with a replacement. The problem being Zarya provides the station keeping
>required to keep ISS on-orbit. It's replacement would not be easy and
>replacing the Russian modules with American/ESA/JAXA or a commercial space
>player will not be easy nor cheap.
>

I don't think it'll be as hard as you think. Launch the Interim Control
module until something larger can be built and launched.
Or finish the propulsion module.

Use Falcon 9 to launch it and its replacement.


Build out the

>Perhaps one of the biggest in-orbit assembly projects ever tackled. With
>SLS draining away NASA resources and budget this just doesn't look like
>it's in the cards. More evidence IMHO that SLS is more about jobs (US) than
>about space.
>
>Perhaps it will be more cost effective to just replace the whole system
>with inflatable Bigelow modules when the time comes?

Also we need to stop thinking of ONE space station. (well two if we consider
the Chinese one.)

I suspect within a decade we'll have 3-4 space stations in orbit, all
capable of supporting a crew for extended times.

Or maybe a commercial player with strike a deal with the Russians to buy the
modules as is? Question then becomes how to you replace the Progress
missions needed to support the Russian modules? You either have to come up
with your own answer to Progress or contract it out to the Russians to have
them continue.
>

I don't think replacing Progress would be difficult. I'm sure more than one
American company would love to bid on that.

>I am opposed to a de-orbit of ISS without first partial in-space
>disassembly. Perhaps disposable cargo modules could be attached to ISS
>parts to effect an orderly de-orbit.
>
>However my REAL preference would be a final fueling mission to Zarya
>(assuming it can provide sufficient boost) to place the ISS into a final
>parking orbit at L4/L5 where station keeping isn't needed and it can be
>used for parts or a boot-camp when the time comes to put something there.
>That probably requires a great deal of remote control that doesn't exist
>today either. But IMHO it would be worth sending up a separate boost module
>to accomplish exactly that. Perhaps NASA could build it around the upper
>stage in the works today for the presumed SLS asteroid mission.

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

[David Spain]

On Wednesday, November 19, 2014 11:42:08 AM UTC-5, David Spain wrote:
> However my REAL preference would be a final fueling mission to Zarya (assuming it can provide sufficient boost) to place the ISS into a final parking orbit at L4/L5 where station keeping isn't needed and it can be used for parts or a boot-camp when the time comes to put something there. That probably requires a great deal of remote control that doesn't exist today either. But IMHO it would be worth sending up a separate boost module to accomplish exactly that. Perhaps NASA could build it around the upper stage in the works today for the presumed SLS asteroid mission.

This isn't as crazy as it sounds:

http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2014/11/atv-iss-dodge-chinese-debris/

[David Spain]

I should clarify the presumption around the L4/L5 idea. I would prefer sending it on to L4/L5 ONLY if the other option on the table is de-orbit. Obviously the REAL real preference is to keep it working in LEO beyond 2020 or until sufficient replacement LEO station(s) are up and running...

Dave

[William Mook]

On Friday, November 21, 2014 8:13:52 AM UTC+13, David Spain wrote:
> I should clarify the presumption around the L4/L5 idea. I would prefer sending it on to L4/L5 ONLY if the other option on the table is de-orbit. Obviously the REAL real preference is to keep it working in LEO beyond 2020 or until sufficient replacement LEO station(s) are up and running...
>
> Dave

http://www.russianspaceweb.com/lagrange.html

[bob haller]

If russia and US work out their political problems they may try to run ISS, till a disaster takes it out:(

They keep extending its components expected life, but just like a old car issues come up.

Worse nasa has admitted a ut of control ISS can be a safety hazard to everyone under its ground track.

Its far better to deorbit it or ideally boost it to a safe storage orbit for space history use in the far future.

[William Mook]

Upgrading the ISS for unmanned operation - using telerobotics - and modifying it for brief stays with attached life support by the visiting vessel - would permit sending it deep into space.

Allowing anyone access who followed the rules, and could catch it, would promote the development of deep space craft.

So how to get ISS into deep space?

The ISS masses 450 metric tons fully loaded. To place it in orbit at L1 requires a delta vee of 3.8 km/sec.

There are four solar wings each capable of producing 32.8 kW of power. A total of 131.2 kW. Enough to power 57 NSTAR thrusters that consume 2.3 kW each and can eject Xenon at 40 km/sec.

The 9 kg thruster (and power conditioner) in combination with the 81 kg liquid Xenon bottle, is a typical configuration. At full throttle and power, this is enough propellent to keep the engine thrusting for 326 days. A full throttle and power the engine produces 115 millinewtons! We'll need 10x this propellant to move the ISS!

To impart a 3.8 km/sec delta vee to an object with a 40 km/sec exhaust speed rocket requires that;

u = 1 - 1 / exp( 3.8 / 40.0 ) = 0.090627 = 9.063%

of its starting mass be propelant. This means that the rest of the vehicle is 90.937%. So, adding 57x 9 kg = 513 kg to 450,000 kg - gives us 450,513 kg as the inert weight and

450,513 / 0.90937 = 495,412 kg

for the total stage weight at launch which leaves us with 44,899 kg. This is 554 of the 81 kg tanks of Xenon. If we say 10 tanks per NSTAR this is 810 kg added to the 9 kg engine - 46,170 kg of propellent. 46,683 kg total including engines.

It will take 6 to 21 flights to re-configure the ISS.

A single Space Shuttle cargo could have carried an 'ion boost' module that plugged into the station. However, we no longer have the Space Shuttle. So, we'll need several missions to carry out the changeover.

The Progress resupply capsule carries 2,230 kg - 21 of those flights would be needed to bring the 57 NSTAR and 570 propellant tanks to the station for a boost to L1.

The Automated Transfer Vehicle carries 7,667 kg - 6 of those flights would be needed to bring 57 NSTAR and 570 propellant tanks to the station for a boost to L1.

The H-II transfer vehicle carries 6,000 kg. - 8 of those flights would be needed to bring 57 NSTAR and 570 propellant tanks to the station for a boost to L1.

Power wise, 14 NSTAR engines are allocated to each Wing and 1 NSTAR engine draws from all wings. 57 NSTAR in all, strategically located to minimize stress on the station during boost.

It takes 8 years 8 months of boost to take ISS to L1 in this way. At L1 ISS has sufficient propellant to remain there for many years. During the transit advanced spacecraft visit the station while advanced telerobotics operate and maintain the station.

In the years it is deep in the Van Allen radiation belt, a number of experiments related to radiation hardening could take place.

Once at L1 it could be a supply centre and gateway to lunar and even Mars exploration.

[bob haller]

ISS crew are very busy with maintence of the station. what are your plans when the station is unmanned for years. things break, worse for a old station and I doubt theres going to be the bucks to upgrade the station....

I do believe it should be moved to a storage orbit somewhere,attach a beacon and lights, and some minimal comm ability.

at least it could be visited by space historians.

I still believe the apollo 11 LM upper stage should of been placed in heliospheric orbit, for histor reasons.

A later LM snoopy ended up in heliospheric by accident, certinally it could of been carried along as the apollo 11CM departed the moon, then jetisoned on the way home

[bob haller]

> It's funny how easy it is to identify some posters merely by their
> words.
>
> Mookie will inevitably have irrelevant arithmetic 'scaling' things
> that don't scale linearly as his argument requires and spew 'MEMS' and
> similar terms.
>
> Bobbert will either be postulating unreasonable safety issues or
> calling for all money for spaceflight to be used for museum purposes.
>
> Pathetic...

Meanwhile FRED will make idiot remarks, and call people names, which really detract from whatever he is trying to say.......

But he is too dumb to realize that:(

[bob haller]

Just ponder for a moment how great it would be to have the first ships that brought christopher columbus to america:)

noow we could of had the first vehicle to land on the moon for a permanent display.

just no one thought about it:(

[bob haller]

On Friday, January 16, 2015 at 10:44:06 PM UTC-5, Fred J. McCall wrote:

> bob haller <hal...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> >
> >Just ponder for a moment how great it would be to have the first ships that brought christopher columbus to america:)
> >
>

> OK, I've pondered for a moment. Not worth the cost.

>
> >
> >noow we could of had the first vehicle to land on the moon for a permanent display.
> >
> >just no one thought about it:(
> >
>

> And only folks like you, more interested in 'advancement' as a museum
> than as action, even care about it.
>
> --
> "Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar
> territory."
> --G. Behn

No doubt fred would like to see independence hall in philadephia demolished for a tract of homes'

KSC should be mostly demilshed, recycle the displays for scrap metal $......

Build a prison there.
, why study the past:(
Arehealogists should get new jobs at burger king

[Greg (Strider) Moore]

"Fred J. McCall" wrote in message
news:4halbal7chkpu6j9l...@4ax.com...

>
>bob haller <hal...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>>On Friday, January 16, 2015 at 10:44:06 PM UTC-5, Fred J. McCall wrote:
>>> bob haller <hal...@aol.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> >
>>> >Just ponder for a moment how great it would be to have the first ships
>>> >that brought christopher columbus to america:)
>>> >
>>>
>>> OK, I've pondered for a moment. Not worth the cost.
>>>
>>> >
>>> >noow we could of had the first vehicle to land on the moon for a
>>> >permanent display.
>>> >
>>> >just no one thought about it:(
>>> >
>>>
>>> And only folks like you, more interested in 'advancement' as a museum
>>> than as action, even care about it.
>>>
>>

>>No doubt fred would like to see independence hall in philadephia
>>demolished for a tract of homes'
>>
>

>No doubt Bobbert would lie about whether water is wet.

>
>>
>>KSC should be mostly demilshed, recycle the displays for scrap metal
>>$......
>>
>

>Bobbert just doesn't have a clue.
>
>>
>>Build a prison there.
>>
>
>We could keep Bobbert in it to keep him from hurting himself.

>
>>
>>, why study the past:(
>>Arehealogists should get new jobs at burger king
>>
>

>Poor Bobbert doesn't know the difference between 'museum' and 'study
>the past'.
>
>Phew, what a maroon!
>


Bob, you might also want to study survivor bias. A perfect example is,
"Wow, they don't build homes like they used to..." Fact is, they don't many
modern homes are probably built better. BUT we see the few old ones
remaining, NOT all the ones destroyed over the years. So you look at the
ones remaining and come to the wrong conclusion.

The Liberty Bell is somewhat in this class, it's sort of manufactured
history. It wasn't even really all that famous until the 1830s. But you
know what, there were 100s of bells in the colonies and states before then
that also had something historical happen to them. But we only know about
the Liberty Bell because it just happened to be preserved.

Now, don't get me wrong, preservation can be great, but it comes at a cost.
A cost that society doesn't always want to bear.

Preserving a wooden ship 500 years would be a HUGELY daunting task.

Heck, I just saw an article that some folks want to preserve the CV Ranger
because it happened to be the set for the movie Top Gun. You know that's
kind of cool, but seriously. We're not preserving the CVN Enterprise,
despite being vastly more famous and historical and folks want to preserve
basically a movie set? How many CVs do we need to preserve?

Sure, if we had infinite resources, saving this stuff would be easy. It's
not. And quite honestly if Kennedy had said, "land a man on the Moon and
return him and ALL THE HARDWARE before this decade is out..." we'd still be
trying to figure out how to do it.

[bob haller]

All I was taking about was leaving the moon with the LM upper stage attached to the CM and jetisoned into a heliospheric orbit on the way back to earth. The fact it wasnt even considered is sad....

and talking about the $$$ of keeping historic stuff around,ignores the long term $$$$ from exhibits......

tourism is a major part of our economy. that why they finally built the saturn center at KSC:)

[Jeff Findley]

In article <d78757a8-3aa2-40c6...@googlegroups.com>,
hal...@aol.com says...

> All I was taking about was leaving the moon with the LM upper
> stage attached to the CM and jetisoned into a heliospheric orbit
> on the way back to earth. The fact it wasnt even considered is
> sad....

It's not sad, because it's a *stupid* idea. Taking the fuel to do this
from lunar orbit, to the lunar surface, and back to lunar orbit is
stupid. The margins on the LEM were razor thin as it was.

No, the only sane design was to have the SM provide the burn to break
out of lunar orbit. Besides, crashing the upper stage of the LEM into
the lunar surface provided data for the seismic sensors left there by
the Apollo astronauts. That data was more important than trying to
preserve the LEM for "future generations".

> and talking about the $$$ of keeping historic stuff around,ignores
> the long term $$$$ from exhibits......

You talking about "keeping historic stuff around" ignores economics,
physics, and reality in general.

> tourism is a major part of our economy. that why they finally
> built the saturn center at KSC:)

They finally built the "saturn center at KSC" because the government
wanted to "save money" by turning the KSC visitor's center into a "self
sustaining" commercial entity. I think that's complete and utter b.s.
I can still visit the Air Force Museum in Dayton Ohio free of charge
(but since I'm not a dead-beat I do give them a cash donation when I do
so).

Having a commercial company making a profit off of the KSC visitor's
center is a crying shame, not an example of how to make space history
available to the public.

Jeff
--
"the perennial claim that hypersonic airbreathing propulsion would
magically make space launch cheaper is nonsense -- LOX is much cheaper
than advanced airbreathing engines, and so are the tanks to put it in
and the extra thrust to carry it." - Henry Spencer

[William Mook]

Legally speaking the USA is breaking international law and treaties Reagan signed by fomenting Fascist revolutions on Russia's borders and lying about it to the US press.

The US is also is at present breaking international law by supporting gas attacks against a duly elected leader in Syria.

The US government is at present breaking international law flying drone strikes against Afghanistan, Iraq and Iran.

Not to mention the lies that got the US and NATO involved in Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya in the first place. Which is just dumbass as far as the US position in the world is concerned.

So, assuming the USA and NATO comes to their senses, and Russia and other nations don't lose theirs, and we don't descend into World War Three, there is plenty that could be done with ISS at this juncture.

http://www.space.com/13503-mars500-crew-emerges-520-day-simulation.html

We could launch 160 US made NEXT 1+1 ion engines with 80 launches of Russian made Progress capsules and attach them to the ISS. Each NEXT engine with their own 20 kW solar power supply displaces and augments the existing 8 solar wings on the ISS, and provides sufficient capacity to boost the ISS through a delta vee of 11 km/sec. (with each NEXT engine equipped with 900 kg of Xenon gas in a 835 mm diameter spherical container.)

We build 9 Russian type LK-lunar modules, equipped with US made inflatable aerobrake heat shields, that permit them to land on Mars and return to the ISS when that is orbiting Mars. The ISS also navigates into orbit around Phobos and around Diemos - and explores the surface of each moon.

Three of the LK-lunar modules are deployed on the moon, and return to the station, once it makes its way into lunar orbit. As a test of the procedures and training for a Mars flight.

[William Mook]

The ISS costs $150 billion so far, and will cost $100 billion over the next 10 years. For an added cost of $9 billion a private entity could;

(1) Equip the the station with 160 NEXT engines that produce 80 Newtons.
(2) Equip the station with an enhanced life support system,
(3) Equip the station with 9 LK-lunar landers, 6 of which have aerobraking.
(4) Equip the station with a crew of 6.
(5) Fly the station to the moon, carry out 3 LK based landings,
(6) Fly the station to Mars, carry out 6 LK based landings,
(7) Fly the station to Diemos & Phobos,
(8) Use returned LK to navigate from ISS in orbit to surface of moons.
(9) Fly the station back to Earth orbit.

Sell tickets to qualified entrants who pay $2 billion each - or pledge $2 billion each - with $100 million deposit - to go on this mission. Collect a dozen pledges - 6 primary - 6 back up.

[William Mook]

Mission to Phobos
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LjcAwJRTQ8o

[William Mook]

On Monday, March 23, 2015 at 12:24:25 AM UTC-4, William Mook wrote:
> Mission to Phobos
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LjcAwJRTQ8o

Here's another approach;

http://www.astronautix.com/craft/stus1962.htm
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8vblN33OJCg

To inflatable dichroic concentrators that are 393 meters in diameter focus specifically colored light on to 9.83 meter diameter multi-junction photocells that produce 20,000 kW each at Mars. While at Earth each system produces 46,450 kW due to brighter solar conditions.

With a 50 km/sec exhaust speed 3,716 Newtons is produced at 1 AU near Earth while 1,600 Newtons is produced at 1.524 AU near Mars.

Replacing the 8 solar wings of the Space Station with two inflatable concentrators described above on Either Side of the station - this maintains the 419,455 kg - while adding 160,000 kg of Xenon gas propellant. This allow the station to achieve 16.15 km/sec delta vee. With this level of power it takes 35 days to achieve this total speed.

http://www.russianspaceweb.com/lk.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RL10

Using an RL-10 engine, with an exhaust speed of 4.56 km/sec, and 110,000 Newtons of Thrust, we can impart 2 gees of thrust to 5,600 kg of vehicle. With a payload of 900 kg and 500 kg inert weight, this leaves 4,200 kg of propellant. This gives a 6.32 km/sec delta vee.

The orbital velocity of the moon is 1.68 km/sec. So, to land and take off it requires 3.36 km/sec.

The orbital velocity of Mars is 3.56 km/sec. To land and take off from Mars requires 3.76 km/sec, since to land, all that's required is to enter an orbit that allows the vehicle to aerobrake in the Martian atmosphere.

An additional 6,650 kg to 6,000 kg of payload may be shuttled to the surface of the moon or Mars aboard the 5,600 kg spacecraft. Enough for four Bigelow Expandable Activity Modules and supplies.

http://lasermotive.com/

A 40 MW link near Mars, or a 92 MW link near the Moon, provides a means to break water down into hydrogen and oxygen, to refuel the lander on the surface. This gives the vehicle considerable capability to explore vast regions of both bodies as well as resupplying the station with water, oxygen and propellants.

A 200 kW fully recyling life support system for 8 crew members is added to the station, which reduces consumables as well through total recycling.

16.5 kWh is required to reduce 1 kilogram to plasma which may then be re-assembled into anything. This is useful in 3D print processing of raw materials into products.

40 MW of beamed energy at Mars, allows the processing of 2.4 tonnes of raw material into anything per hour. 92 MW of beamed energy at the Moon, allows the processing of 5.5 tonnes of raw material into anything per hour.

6.6 metric tons of hydrogen oxygen propellant are prepared from 9.2 cubic meters of water each hour at Mars. 15.2 tonnes of hydrogen oxygen propellant are prepared from 21.1 cubic meters of water per hour at the Moon.

[Greg (Strider) Moore]

"William Mook" wrote in message
news:83b2e53e-3cec-49c5...@googlegroups.com...

There are no qualified entrants who could possibly pay $2 billion, let alone
any who would even be willing.

And that's really the least of your issues here.

[William Mook]

There are 822 people with $10 billion in wealth in the world in 2014. Their average age is 56. A 2% market penetration fills the slots. By offering them ownership interest in the whole planet, and the right to send a nominee, you could easily get 16 punters paying $0.2 billion for a slot, with a commitment for $1.8 billion once the launch takes place.

Once you had a properly structured deal, you could then list it on an appropriate exchange, by subdividing and selling off the rights to the planet in question.

You would do all this subject to UN approval, but use the funds, once they were in place, to support your lobbying efforts, which should proceed without any trouble.

[William Mook]

On Monday, March 23, 2015 at 3:34:18 AM UTC-4, Fred J. McCall wrote:

> William Mook <mokme...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >
> >Legally speaking the USA is breaking international law and treaties Reagan signed by fomenting Fascist revolutions on Russia's borders and lying about it to the US press.
> >
>

> Liar.

No, the US is largely over. We've lost the Constitution. The only people who believe the lies are the useful idiots.

> I guess I shouldn't be surprised that you echo the Useful Idiot
> Russian Shill line.

Russia has nothing to do with it. Russia stood up to NATO when they wanted to do to Syria what they did to Libya. For that the US has fomented a war in Russia's back yard to distract them from intefering in the future. What the insane US leaders fail to realize, is that Russia will bomb America back to the stone age before they give in.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k11v8WOVT2U
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QcpBFZVEL1k

> >
> >The US is also is at present breaking international law by supporting gas attacks against a duly elected leader in Syria.
> >
>

> Liar.

Truth.

http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/139886/david-kaye/the-legal-consequences-of-illegal-wars

http://www.globalresearch.ca/syria-chemical-weapons-who-was-behind-the-east-ghouta-attacks/5362741

> >
> >The US government is at present breaking international law flying drone strikes against Afghanistan, Iraq and Iran.
> >
>

> Cite the international law you claim is being broken, liar.

Read a freaking news paper you lunatic! lol.


http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/10/22/us-usa-yemen-drones-idUSBRE99L1A420131022

http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2013/10/22/drone-strikes-international-law_n_4141183.html?

Its funny, you don't know about it, so anyone that tells you abut it is a liar. lol.

That's a mental dysfunction that must set you back considerably.


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

[Greg (Strider) Moore]

"William Mook" wrote in message

news:0bad7dfc-62e7-4daa...@googlegroups.com...

Again, you display your ignorance of your own statements.
How many of those 822 people are qualified? None. Unless NASA is paying FAR
better than I thought, none of those 822 people are qualified to operate
ISS. So your number of qualified people is zero.

And 2% of 0 is STILL 0.

And on top of that, I can guarantee you won't get 2% of even the top 1%.
Witness the few number of commercial astronauts who have flown to ISS, and
this with Russia making it quite clear they're willing to sell seats.

Or witness the booming business that Bigelow is doing flying folks to their
space hotels. Oh wait.. they're not.

And billionaires don’t become billionaires by toss 20% of their net wealth
after nothing.

>
>Once you had a properly structured deal, you could then list it on an
>appropriate exchange, by subdividing and selling off the rights to the
>planet in question.

Which no reasonable person would buy because:
A) There's currently no legal framework to OWN anything off earth. WHEN
that happens, and it will, it won't be in the way you describe. It'll be
someone out there and simply laying claim. Not trying to sell something
they can't even show the legal proof they have.

B) No government with launch capability would allow it to happen in this
way.

>
>You would do all this subject to UN approval, but use the funds, once they
>were in place, to support your lobbying efforts, which should proceed
>without any trouble.

The UN has been VERY clear where their thoughts lie on the ownership of
extraterrestrial resources lay and it's hardly capitalist friendly.

[William Mook]

Nonsense.

> How many of those 822 people are qualified? None.

Qualified for what exactly? Someone with more than $10 billion in liquid assets and is asked to commit $2 billion - is qualified financially to enter into the agreement. In terms of other qualifications, they can send nominees, or receive training as part of the deal.

Generally speaking those with $10 billion are quite capable mentally.

> Unless NASA is paying FAR
> better than I thought, none of those 822 people are qualified to operate
> ISS.

Okay, so you're saying qualified in the sense that they lack adequate training. They can hire nominees, or receive training as part of the package.

> So your number of qualified people is zero.

Nonsense. It takes two years of training to qualify for ISS duty. Someone willing to spend $2 billion for the privilege of traveling to, and owning Mars, would likely spend two years to obtain the necessary training as well.

Its included in the price of admission.

http://spaceflight.nasa.gov/shuttle/support/training/isstraining/

> And 2% of 0 is STILL 0.

100% of 2% is 2%. 100% of the buyers willing to part with $2 billion would arrange for training for themselves and/or a nominee to go on the trip.

> And on top of that, I can guarantee you won't get 2% of even the top 1%.

You don't have much experience in marketing do you? In this sort of campaign closure rates over the course of a year is 6.5% to 4.5%. With a 3 year dedicated effort, and 16 slots (8 primary 8 back up) we have to achieve only 0.654% sell per year.

> Witness the few number of commercial astronauts who have flown to ISS, and
> this with Russia making it quite clear they're willing to sell seats.

To NASA sure. At $70 million a seat. For private buyers, prices are going up and the Russians aren't making it as easy as they might for prospective clients.

> Or witness the booming business that Bigelow is doing flying folks to their
> space hotels. Oh wait.. they're not.

http://www.space.com/9906-robert-bigelow-lessons-visions-realities.html

Bigelow has launched two systems and will be launching a third one this year aboard a Falcon rocket according to this web site

http://www.spacex.com/missions

> And billionaires don't become billionaires by toss 20% of their net wealth
> after nothing.

You know precious little about the aerospace subjects that are so dear to you. You know even less about billionaires and how they make decisions.

> >
> >Once you had a properly structured deal, you could then list it on an
> >appropriate exchange, by subdividing and selling off the rights to the
> >planet in question.
>
> Which no reasonable person would buy because:

Nonsense.

> A) There's currently no legal framework to OWN anything off earth.

The United Nations sponsored 1967 "Outer Space Treaty" established all of outer space as an international commons by describing it as the "province of all mankind".

Responsibility for activities in space is the duty of States Parties, regardless of whether they are carried out by governments or non-governmental entities.

The Outer Space Treaty of 1967 has currently been ratified by 102 countries, including all the major space-faring nations. It has also been signed by 26 other nations but not yet ratified.

The international Moon Treaty, finalized in 1979 and entering into force in 1984, forbids private ownership of extraterrestrial real estate. However, as of January 1, 2013 only 15 states have ratified the agreement,and none of these are major space-faring nations.

The Outer Space Treaty permits states to withdraw from its terms with one year's notification.

A number of individuals and organisations offer schemes or plans claiming to allow people to purchase portions of the Moon or other celestial bodies. Though the details of some of the schemes' legal arguments vary, one goes so far as to state that although the Outer Space Treaty, which entered force in 1967, forbids countries from claiming celestial bodies, there is no such provision forbidding private individuals from doing so.

However, the treaty states "The activities of non-governmental entities in outer space, including the moon and other celestial bodies, shall require authorization and continuing supervision by the appropriate State Party to the Treaty."

Thus, while it does not explicitly prohibit such schemes, the treaty does require they be authorized by the schemes' government.

Real estate and property laws within these governments generally provide for the ability to claim new lands, however they require that a claimant demonstrate "intent to occupy", something that is achieved with the modifications to the ISS I've described.

Ownership of empty space has been reduced to current legal practice. The United Nations "Outer Space Treaty" reserves space as well as objects for the good of mankind, and effectively prohibits private ownership of arbitrary parcels of empty space.

Yet this has not stopped the allocation of slots for satellites in geostationary orbit.

This is managed by the International Telecommunication Union.

The 1976 Declaration of the First Meeting of Equatorial Countries, also known as the Bogotá Declaration, signed by several countries located on the Earth's equator, attempted to assert sovereignty over those portions of the geosynchronous orbit that continuously lie over the signatory nation's territory.

Control remained with the ITU.

Others have attempted to claim ownership. This includes;

Chilean lawyer Jenaro Gajardo Vera became famous for his 1953 claim of ownership of the Moon.

Martin Juergens from Germany claims that the Moon has belonged to his family since July 15, 1756, when the Prussian king Frederick the Great presented it to his ancestor Aul Juergens as a symbolic gesture of gratitude for services rendered, and decreed that it should pass to the youngest born son.

A. Dean Lindsay made claims for all extraterrestrial objects on June 15, 1936, and sent a letter to Pittsburgh Notary Public along with a deed and money for establishment of the property. The public sent offers to buy objects from him as well.

James T. Mangan (1896-1970) was a famous public relations man and best-selling author on self-help topics who publicly claimed ownership of outer space in 1948. Mangan founded what he called the Nation of Celestial Space and registered it with the Recorder of Deeds and Titles of Cook County, Illinois, on January 1, 1949.

Robert R. Coles, former chairman of New York's Hayden Planetarium, started "the interplanetary Development Corporation" and sold lots on the moon for one dollar per acre.

Dennis Hope, an American entrepreneur, sells extraterrestrial real estate today. In 1980, he started his own business, the Lunar Embassy Commission. As of 2009 Hope claimed to have sold 2.5M 1-acre plots on the Moon, for around US$20 per acre. He allocates land to be sold by closing his eyes and randomly pointing to a map of the Moon. He claims two former US presidents as customers, stating Jimmy Carter and Ronald Reagan had aides purchase them plots on the moon.

Adam Ismail, Mustafa Khalil and Abdullah al-Umari, three men from Yemen, sued NASA for invading Mars. They claim that they "inherited the planet from our ancestors 3,000 years ago". They based their argument on mythologies of the Himyaritic and Sabaean civilizations that existed several thousand years B.C.

Gregory W. Nemitz claimed ownership of Asteroid 433 Eros, on which NEAR Shoemaker landed in 2001. His company Orbital Development issued NASA a parking ticket for $20.

After purchasing the Lunokhod 2 lunar lander, computer game designer and astronaut's son Richard Garriot jokingly claimed the rest of the Moon in the name of his gaming character, Lord British, under the premise that existing treaties prohibit governments from territorial claims to the Moon, but not individuals.

> WHEN
> that happens, and it will, it won't be in the way you describe. It'll be
> someone out there and simply laying claim. Not trying to sell something
> they can't even show the legal proof they have.

Nonsense. People who create the opportunity, are smart enough to create the legal structure around which that opportunity will develop. They will not leave it to chance. Anyone going into space to achieve these ends will expend considerable resources here doing that. Setting up the appropriate legal structure with which to prosecute your claims is a small price to pay compared to the scale of the effort required.

> B) No government with launch capability would allow it to happen in this
> way.

Nonsense. The ITU maintained control of the slots over the equator, despite the combined efforts of the nations above which those slots are positioned. This was done through careful and informed management closely allied to those who had real claims on that space because they were doing business there.

> >
> >You would do all this subject to UN approval, but use the funds, once they
> >were in place, to support your lobbying efforts, which should proceed
> >without any trouble.
>
>
> The UN has been VERY clear where their thoughts lie on the ownership of
> extraterrestrial resources lay and it's hardly capitalist friendly.

Nonsense. The siding of the UN with ITU against the nations that claimed ownership and tax proceeds, was done entirely in the interest of the capitalists who had invested trillions of dollars in equipment over the years.

[William Mook]

On Tuesday, March 24, 2015 at 7:23:20 AM UTC-4, Fred J. McCall wrote:
> William Mook <mokme...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >

> >There are 822 people with $10 billion in wealth in the world in 2014. Their average age is 56. A 2% market penetration fills the slots. By offering them ownership interest in the whole planet, and the right to send a nominee, you could easily get 16 punters paying $0.2 billion for a slot, with a commitment for $1.8 billion once the launch takes place.
> >
>

> So by selling something you don't have the rights to you think you can
> make money. There's a name for that sort of thing...

In your incessant hatred you have become delusional and as a result cannot read anything sensibly.

So, let's take a step back and look at the facts.

Fact is, for a very small fraction of the $150 billion spent on the ISS, that equipment could be converted to a solar powered ion engine propelled interplanetary spacecraft that carried people and cargo throughout the inner solar system.

The governments that paid for the ISS in the first place are talking of breaking up, and this thread wondered about when the ISS would follow Skylab and Mir and crash into Earth, rather than pay for its continued operation.

Now, typically, people who have made a lot of money, are attracted to these sorts of opportunities. Governments have the capacity to make hugely irrational decisions with their assets. A clever person can usually exploit such propensities to gain hugely as a consequence.

So, the idea of spending a few billion dollars to get a $150 billion asset, and leverage that into a few trillion dollars worth of claims on an entire planet, is something that those with $10 billion and more would spend some time considering.

In this thread, in response to those who said the ISS will join Mir and Skylab at the bottom of the ocean, I pointed out that 160 NEXT solar powered ion engines attached to the station, each with 900 kg of Xenon gas propellant, could propel the station and personnel and supplies through a delta vee of 16 km/sec. This is sufficient to travel from Low Earth orbit to an orbit around any object in the inner solar system, and back to Earth orbit again.

A crew of six to eight, fed with freeze dried foods, not fresh foods as at present, supplied with 3D printed clothes, parts, and even drugs, equipped with radio protectant drugs, could fly a slightly modified ISS around the inner solar system, and back to Earth.

The Russians and Europeans as well as the Japanese have explored the potential of reducing costs by these changes anyway. The Americans have held radioprotectants secret until the Fukashima disaster. That information has been released publicly, and those drugs are now undergoing FDA review for general use. Private companies have developed techniques to mitigate the radiation in the inner van Allen belt, reducing radiation levels to 1% current levels in a few months.

>
> >
> >Once you had a properly structured deal, you could then list it on an appropriate exchange, by subdividing and selling off the rights to the planet in question.
> >
>

> Which rights you don't own.

Nonsense. Sending a crew to Mars gives you rights to Mars. Those who fund the effort can agree how to divide those rights once they are realized. Look at the history of the ITU. The rights they claim are indeed owned by them as established by the many cases they've won against other claims. No doubt it will be the same for interplanetary development.

Think about a group of co-workers that contribute $1 per week toward a lottery ticket purchase, and agree to share the winnings among themselves. They don't own those winnings, and may never own those winnings, but they can certainly agree what each will contribute to purchase a chance, and what each will receive based on their contributions.

Same here.

> >
> >You would do all this subject to UN approval, but use the funds, once they were in place, to support your lobbying efforts, which should proceed without any trouble.
> >
>

> So another Mook scheme comes down to promises you can't deliver,

Your insanity causes you to personalize generic statements and come to woefully erroneous conclusions.

Fact is, 160 NEXT ion engines each powered by 8 kW of electrical power each carrying 900 kg of Xenon gas, could propel themselves and the ISS through a delta vee of 16 km/sec. This is more than sufficient to fly to Mars Orbit from Earth Orbit and back.

Fact is, by making slight modifications to the ISS, a crew of 8 could be sustained without resupply for up to 3 years. These modifications include the installation of a 3D printer and the recycling of water supplies and air, combined with the use of freeze dried foods rather than fresh foods. All these have been looked at in detail, and all are on the agenda anyway.

Fact is, the experience of the ITU indicates that there is sufficient willingness among UN and others to allow private ownership of Mars to those to trouble themselves to travel to Mars to make that claim.

Fact is, the ability to acquire $150 billion asset by spending an additional $5 billion and using it to make a $1 trillion+ claim on an entire planet has a sort of technological and business sweetness to it that if properly structured would be impossible for anyone with $10 billion and more to resist.

> selling what you don't own, and bribery.

Interesting interpretation of business people honestly agreeing to split potential gain, and spending money to explain their intent to political figures important to their private enterprise. In short, planning for the future and lobbying is the way things get done in the world today.

> How typical...

That you interpret exciting possibilities insanely.

> --
> You are
> What you do
> When it counts.

By this measure you are nothing.

[William Mook]

On Tuesday, March 24, 2015 at 7:30:15 AM UTC-4, Fred J. McCall wrote:
> William Mook <mokme...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >On Monday, March 23, 2015 at 3:34:18 AM UTC-4, Fred J. McCall wrote:
> >> William Mook <mokme...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> >
> >> >Legally speaking the USA is breaking international law and treaties Reagan signed by fomenting Fascist revolutions on Russia's borders and lying about it to the US press.
> >> >
> >>
> >> Liar.
> >
> >No, the US is largely over. We've lost the Constitution. The only people who believe the lies are the useful idiots.
> >
>

> Your moronic beliefs about the United States are irrelevant to the lie
> you tell above.

Your insane interpretation that reports in Reuters, Huffington Post and The Gaurdian are somehow my beliefs is what is irrelevant to reality.

The criminal elements within the US government took pains to impress upon Obama, with the arrest of one of his transition team members, Governor Rod Blagojevich, who is in control. As a result, NONE of Obama's promises were fulfilled, and he has been turned into a puppet just like his predecessor.

With a real investigation of 9/11 permanently thwarted, and any discussion of the deaths of the Kennedy's and Martin Luther King consigned to ancient history, the criminals have upped their game, and accelerated their destruction of the US Constitution and the rule of law.

In the end, such criminality, if unopposed by decent citizens and the application of due process, will result in the destruction of the USA. Such is happening now.

Which is too damned bad.

I mourn the passing of a great nation.

You insanely think it will arise from its death bed and walk again.

Here is what Paul Craig Roberts, a former Reagan Administration official has to say;

http://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2014/02/13/five-criminals-america-gestapo-replaced-rule-law/

Roberts pointed out that when Reagan fired the neo-cons in his administration he was subjected to an assassination attempt. It failed, but it did put Bush in charge of Reagan's second term.

>
> >
> >> I guess I shouldn't be surprised that you echo the Useful Idiot
> >> Russian Shill line.
> >
> >Russia has nothing to do with it. Russia stood up to NATO when they wanted to do to Syria what they did to Libya. For that the US has fomented a war in Russia's back yard to distract them from intefering in the future. What the insane US leaders fail to realize, is that Russia will bomb America back to the stone age before they give in.
> >
>

> Oh, yeah. No Russian involvement in Ukraine at all. Riiiiiight....

Your lunacy makes it impossible for you to see that the Crimea has been Russian territory since the time of the Czars and that fomenting a revolution in the Ukraine would be like Russia fomenting an anti-US revolution in Canada, with predictable results.

http://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2015/01/31/ukraines-military-commander-russian-troops-ukraine/

>
> >
> >> >
> >> >The US is also is at present breaking international law by supporting gas attacks against a duly elected leader in Syria.
> >> >
> >>
> >> Liar.
> >
> >Truth.
> >
>

> Lies.

Truth. What actually happened was NATO and US supplied the rebels with the means to carry out a false flag chemical attack which was blamed on Assad.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DbMdll58lis
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rXLeND1NURI

The reason the US and NATO did this was because they want to build a pipeline for Afghan gas fields to feed European gas needs without using Russia's gas pipeline network. For this to work requires that Iran and Syria be neutralized.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DbMdll58lis

Since Syria and Iran, along with Russia, have also opposed the Opium trade out of Afganistan, this destabilization effort is also supported by organized criminal elements in the region.

>
> >
> >> >
> >> >The US government is at present breaking international law flying drone strikes against Afghanistan, Iraq and Iran.
> >> >
> >>
> >> Cite the international law you claim is being broken, liar.
> >
> >Read a freaking news paper you lunatic! lol.
> >
>

> In other words, you've got nothing, oh insult-free Mookie. lol.

Read the links!
>
> >
> >http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/10/22/us-usa-yemen-drones-idUSBRE99L1A420131022
> >
> >http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2013/10/22/drone-strikes-international-law_n_4141183.html?
> >
>
> Human Rights Watch is not an international court.

So?

> Their views on what
> is and isn't a violation of international law are generally well
> beyond being merely questionable.

Nonsense.

>
> >
> >Its funny, you don't know about it, so anyone that tells you abut it is a liar. lol.
> >
>

> It's funny how you read virtually everything in some ass backward way.

Its called psychological projection sir. You read everything ass backward, and refuse to admit it to yourself, so are reduced to projecting the behaviour on to others.

Fact is, 1 million American citizens went to Chicago and were beaten down by militarized police. For every person there over 100 people who supported them. Over 2/3 of Americans are against the military control of the US political regimes and want the gobus war on terror to end and for a real investigation into the crimes of our past to take place, and see the real criminals put in jail.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2012/may/21/chicago-police-nato-summit-protesters

Following the death of Michael Hastings, the death of Gary Webb, it is very unlikely that any amount of political action will have an effect. The predictable result is the abject collapse of the USA, which is too damned bad.

That collapse will be on your head, not mine sir. That is what you have to live with and take responsibility for.

> >
> >That's a mental dysfunction that must set you back considerably.
> >
>

> Yeah, I'm laughing all the way to the bank, Mookie...
>

The bank that will take your deposits to cover their insane bets. Great!

http://ellenbrown.com/2014/12/01/new-rules-cyprus-style-bail-ins-to-hit-deposits-and-pensions/


> --
> "You take the lies out of him, and he'll shrink to the size of
> your hat; you take the malice out of him, and he'll disappear."
> -- Mark Twain

Its always interesting to read your sigs. They communicate so much of what is going on in your subconscious. You must consider yourself a small man living a small life of no consequence to anyone. I feel sad for you.

[Greg (Strider) Moore]

"William Mook" wrote in message

news:434a5897-cc68-4c41...@googlegroups.com...

>
>On Tuesday, March 24, 2015 at 7:23:20 AM UTC-4, Fred J. McCall wrote:
>> William Mook <mokme...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >There are 822 people with $10 billion in wealth in the world in 2014.
>> >Their average age is 56. A 2% market penetration fills the slots. By

>> >offering them ownership intere st in the whole planet, and the right to

>> >send a nominee, you could easily get 16 punters paying $0.2 billion for
>> >a slot, with a commitment for $1.8 billion once the launch takes place.
>> >
>>
>> So by selling something you don't have the rights to you think you can
>> make money. There's a name for that sort of thing...
>
>In your incessant hatred you have become delusional and as a result cannot
>read anything sensibly.
>
>So, let's take a step back and look at the facts.

That would be a good place to start.

>
>Fact is, for a very small fraction of the $150 billion spent on the ISS,
>that equipment could be converted to a solar powered ion engine propelled
>interplanetary spacecraft that carried people and cargo throughout the
>inner solar system.

No, it can't. For one thing by the time you spend months getting it through
the Van Allen radiation belts you've probably pretty much fried everything
on board. And because you can't have a crew on-board and ISS is DESIGNED to
be crewed at all times, you're also screwed. Yes, you might TRY to fly it
for months w/o a crew, but you're screwed if anything goes wrong.

>
>The governments that paid for the ISS in the first place are talking of
>breaking up, and this thread wondered about when the ISS would follow
>Skylab and Mir and crash into Earth, rather than pay for its continued
>operation.
>
>Now, typically, people who have made a lot of money, are attracted to these
>sorts of opportunities.

Which opportunity? To die of radiation poisoning while flying through the
belts?
Acquiring an asset that has its electronics fried?
To spend billions on something that won't make them a dime?

> Governments have the capacity to make hugely irrational decisions with
> their assets. A clever person can usually exploit such propensities to
> gain hugely as a consequence.
>
>So, the idea of spending a few billion dollars to get a $150 billion asset,
>and leverage that into a few trillion dollars worth of claims on an entire
>planet, is something that those with $10 billion and more would spend some
>time considering.

I'm sure they have, and they're not lining up to do what you suggest.
Perhaps they know a lot more than you think.

Even Musk, who has money to burn isn't coming close to your plan and he DOES
intend to go to Mars.

>
>In this thread, in response to those who said the ISS will join Mir and
>Skylab at the bottom of the ocean, I pointed out that 160 NEXT solar
>powered ion engines attached to the station, each with 900 kg of Xenon gas
>propellant, could propel the station and personnel and supplies through a
>delta vee of 16 km/sec. This is sufficient to travel from Low Earth orbit
>to an orbit around any object in the inner solar system, and back to Earth
>orbit again.
>
>A crew of six to eight, fed with freeze dried foods, not fresh foods as at
>present, supplied with 3D printed clothes, parts, and even drugs, equipped
>with radio protectant drugs, could fly a slightly modified ISS around the
>inner solar system, and back to Earth.

Freeze dried foods doesn't really solve much because you need the bulk
component to make them useful. WATER. So you're still carrying the same mass
along. And we know from experience that morale is better with more variety
than you're suggesting.
And again, 3D printing doesn't solve most of your issues. It is handy when
you need a part you didn't stock, but since you have to stock clothing
anyway, just stock the clothing as clothing.

As for radio-protectant drugs, again, you elevate studies to something that
actually works. Much like your engineering. There are HUGE differences.

>
>The Russians and Europeans as well as the Japanese have explored the
>potential of reducing costs by these changes anyway. The Americans have
>held radioprotectants secret until the Fukashima disaster. That
>information has been released publicly, and those drugs are now undergoing
>FDA review for general use. Private companies have developed techniques to
>mitigate the radiation in the inner van Allen belt, reducing radiation
>levels to 1% current levels in a few months.

Which adds to your COSTS.

>
>>
>> >
>> >Once you had a properly structured deal, you could then list it on an
>> >appropriate exchange, by subdividing and selling off the rights to the
>> >planet in question.
>> >
>>
>> Which rights you don't own.
>
>Nonsense. Sending a crew to Mars gives you rights to Mars. Those who fund
>the effort can agree how to divide those rights once they are realized.

And do WHAT with them? This is like going to the Sahara and claiming you're
a millionaire because you have all this sand available.

You don't have the infrastructure ON Mars to really do much with that wealth
(at least not in the lifetime of your settlers or probably even their kids)
and you can't afford to ship it to Earth

> Look at the history of the ITU. The rights they claim are indeed owned by
> them as established by the many cases they've won against other claims.
> No doubt it will be the same for interplanetary development.
>
>Think about a group of co-workers that contribute $1 per week toward a
>lottery ticket purchase, and agree to share the winnings among themselves.
>They don't own those winnings, and may never own those winnings, but they
>can certainly agree what each will contribute to purchase a chance, and
>what each will receive based on their contributions.
>
>Same here.

So you're suggesting a "tax on those who can't do math" is a viable
investment strategy?

>
>> >
>> >You would do all this subject to UN approval, but use the funds, once
>> >they were in place, to support your lobbying efforts, which should
>> >proceed without any trouble.
>> >
>>
>> So another Mook scheme comes down to promises you can't deliver,
>
>Your insanity causes you to personalize generic statements and come to
>woefully erroneous conclusions.
>
>Fact is, 160 NEXT ion engines each powered by 8 kW of electrical power each
>carrying 900 kg of Xenon gas, could propel themselves and the ISS through a
>delta vee of 16 km/sec. This is more than sufficient to fly to Mars Orbit
>from Earth Orbit and back.
>
>Fact is, by making slight modifications to the ISS, a crew of 8 could be
>sustained without resupply for up to 3 years. These modifications include
>the installation of a 3D printer and the recycling of water supplies and
>air, combined with the use of freeze dried foods rather than fresh foods.
>All these have been looked at in detail, and all are on the agenda anyway.

They already RECYCLE most of the water and air. And yet it still needs
resupply on a regular basis.

>
>Fact is, the experience of the ITU indicates that there is sufficient
>willingness among UN and others to allow private ownership of Mars to those
>to trouble themselves to travel to Mars to make that claim.
>
>Fact is, the ability to acquire $150 billion asset by spending an
>additional $5 billion and using it to make a $1 trillion+ claim on an
>entire planet has a sort of technological and business sweetness to it that
>if properly structured would be impossible for anyone with $10 billion and
>more to resist.

Until they run the math. And then they realize what a crock your plan is.

If anyone is going to get there, it's almost certainly going to be with the
Musk model, NOT yours.

>
>> selling what you don't own, and bribery.
>
>Interesting interpretation of business people honestly agreeing to split
>potential gain, and spending money to explain their intent to political
>figures important to their private enterprise. In short, planning for the
>future and lobbying is the way things get done in the world today.
>
>> How typical...
>
>That you interpret exciting possibilities insanely.

I think you put meant to use the adjective form of insane there.

Face it, at Musk's prices (who I believe far more than yours) I can buy 60
Falcon Heavies (and if I'm buying in bulk I'm sure he'll give me a discount)
and I can get 380,000kg to LEO. Not quite the mass of ISS, but as I can
optimize for what I want (i.e. I'm not bringing along a lot of useless mass)
I can probably do a hell of a lot more.

Hell, since I don't need nearly 1/2 the mass of ISS, I'll take 1/2 the
flights, use 2 of them to lift up some large Bigelow modules and 28 to lift
everything else and come out ahead.

Or I'll wait for him to develop the MCT and lift 100 tonnes at a time. I
would be surprised if that would cost me $1B a flight, so I still come in
cheaper.

>
>> --
>> You are
>> What you do
>> When it counts.
>
>By this measure you are nothing.

[William Mook]

On Wednesday, March 25, 2015 at 3:27:14 PM UTC+13, Greg (Strider) Moore wrote:
> "William Mook" wrote in message
> news:434a5897-cc68-4c41...@googlegroups.com...
> >
> >On Tuesday, March 24, 2015 at 7:23:20 AM UTC-4, Fred J. McCall wrote:
> >> William Mook <mokme...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> >
> >> >There are 822 people with $10 billion in wealth in the world in 2014.
> >> >Their average age is 56. A 2% market penetration fills the slots. By
> >> >offering them ownership intere st in the whole planet, and the right to
> >> >send a nominee, you could easily get 16 punters paying $0.2 billion for
> >> >a slot, with a commitment for $1.8 billion once the launch takes place.
> >> >
> >>
> >> So by selling something you don't have the rights to you think you can
> >> make money. There's a name for that sort of thing...
> >
> >In your incessant hatred you have become delusional and as a result cannot
> >read anything sensibly.
> >
> >So, let's take a step back and look at the facts.
>
> That would be a good place to start.

Always.

>
> >
> >Fact is, for a very small fraction of the $150 billion spent on the ISS,
> >that equipment could be converted to a solar powered ion engine propelled
> >interplanetary spacecraft that carried people and cargo throughout the
> >inner solar system.
>
> No, it can't.

Yes it can.

> For one thing by the time you spend months getting it through
> the Van Allen radiation belts you've probably pretty much fried everything
> on board.

Nonsense. You have never heard of Tethers Unlimited and their hi-volt programme. By the time you've modified the ISS to make the trip, you will have reduced the van Allen belts to 1% their current levels and will pass through them easily.

http://www.tethers.com/hivolt.html

> And because you can't have a crew on-board

Yes you can. Not only can you eliminate the van Allen belt radiation hazard, you can also give your crew radio-protectants that let them survive even lethal radiation doses.

http://io9.com/5966704/ex-rad-the-drug-that-takes-all-of-your-radiation-worries-away

> and ISS is DESIGNED to
> be crewed at all times, you're also screwed.

Being crewed is just fine. Without the van Allen belt, and with radio-protectants, we're good to go!

> Yes, you might TRY to fly it
> for months w/o a crew, but you're screwed if anything goes wrong.

I think a better approach is to remediate the van Allen belt over the period of time you're rebuilding the ISS for interplanetary cruising.

> >
> >The governments that paid for the ISS in the first place are talking of
> >breaking up, and this thread wondered about when the ISS would follow
> >Skylab and Mir and crash into Earth, rather than pay for its continued
> >operation.
> >
> >Now, typically, people who have made a lot of money, are attracted to these
> >sorts of opportunities.
>
> Which opportunity?

To explore Diemos & Phobos, and lay claim on them, and from that slender advantage, control the development of Mars going foward, just as the ITU today controls Geosynchronous orbit.

> To die of radiation poisoning while flying through the
> belts?

Nonsense. HiVolt shows us how to remediate the radiation belt. Onconova shows us how to survive lethal radiation doses.

> Acquiring an asset that has its electronics fried?

Nope. Critical electronics will be shielded before departure, while the major radiation hazard will have been remediated.

> To spend billions on something that won't make them a dime?

No, to spend billions on a great adventure, gaining the ownership of two moons (and all that is left upon them) and a claim on an entire planet.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1204254/Has-mystery-Mars-Monolith-solved.html

> > Governments have the capacity to make hugely irrational decisions with
> > their assets. A clever person can usually exploit such propensities to
> > gain hugely as a consequence.
> >
> >So, the idea of spending a few billion dollars to get a $150 billion asset,
> >and leverage that into a few trillion dollars worth of claims on an entire
> >planet, is something that those with $10 billion and more would spend some
> >time considering.
>
> I'm sure they have,

I am too.

> and they're not lining up to do what you suggest.

Yes they are;

http://www.forbes.com/profile/elon-musk/

> Perhaps they know a lot more than you think.

I am certain they know quite a bit more than you. That's a certainty!

> Even Musk, who has money to burn isn't coming close to your plan and he DOES
> intend to go to Mars.

Musk is putting Tesla up for sale. Why? What's he going to use the $75 billion for?

Oh, to expand SpaceX into a major player, along the lines I've outlined here decades ago. Buying up the disused space faring assets of the major aerospace companies around the world.

This will include the ISS, HiVolt, and all the rest.

Musk may be ON Mars before the 50th anniversary of Apollo. If so, he will be using a solar ion propelled upgraded ISS module to do it.

http://www.techtimes.com/articles/33585/20150218/analyst-predicts-apple-will-buy-tesla-for-75-billion-what-are-the-chances.htm

> >
> >In this thread, in response to those who said the ISS will join Mir and
> >Skylab at the bottom of the ocean, I pointed out that 160 NEXT solar
> >powered ion engines attached to the station, each with 900 kg of Xenon gas
> >propellant, could propel the station and personnel and supplies through a
> >delta vee of 16 km/sec. This is sufficient to travel from Low Earth orbit
> >to an orbit around any object in the inner solar system, and back to Earth
> >orbit again.
> >
> >A crew of six to eight, fed with freeze dried foods, not fresh foods as at
> >present, supplied with 3D printed clothes, parts, and even drugs, equipped
> >with radio protectant drugs, could fly a slightly modified ISS around the
> >inner solar system, and back to Earth.
>
> Freeze dried foods doesn't really solve much because you need the bulk
> component to make them useful. WATER.

Which can be recycled.

> So you're still carrying the same mass
> along.

Not if you're recycling it.

http://www.universetoday.com/101775/an-inside-look-at-the-waterurine-recycling-system-on-the-space-station/

> And we know from experience that morale is better with more variety
> than you're suggesting.

Depends on where you're going. I've got to believe that heading out for Mars builds morale to overcome dietary restrictions.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8d56dwSm2YQ

> And again, 3D printing doesn't solve most of your issues.

Yes it does.

> It is handy when
> you need a part you didn't stock, but since you have to stock clothing
> anyway, just stock the clothing as clothing.

Nonsense. The ability to take a small amount of plastic and make it into any sort of clothing, and then recycle it, like the water, reduces the total amount needed in inventory, whilst expanding the range of clothing (and other things) available.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O863HbRzGc8
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qlaARy5zIZI
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Lt5MizYAto
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_vHrrBtSMvk

>
> As for radio-protectant drugs, again, you elevate studies to something that
> actually works.

The studies were begun following the release of formerly classified data following the Fukushima disaster. Those studies are now completed, and a wide range of drugs are presently on the market.


> Much like your engineering.

<yawn> If you knew anything about what you were talking about, you would realize that you harm your own credibility with statements like these.

> There are HUGE differences.

Between reality and your thoughts about reality - yeah.

>
> >
> >The Russians and Europeans as well as the Japanese have explored the
> >potential of reducing costs by these changes anyway. The Americans have
> >held radioprotectants secret until the Fukashima disaster. That
> >information has been released publicly, and those drugs are now undergoing
> >FDA review for general use. Private companies have developed techniques to
> >mitigate the radiation in the inner van Allen belt, reducing radiation
> >levels to 1% current levels in a few months.
>
> Which adds to your COSTS.

Not by much.

> >
> >>
> >> >
> >> >Once you had a properly structured deal, you could then list it on an
> >> >appropriate exchange, by subdividing and selling off the rights to the
> >> >planet in question.
> >> >
> >>
> >> Which rights you don't own.
> >
> >Nonsense. Sending a crew to Mars gives you rights to Mars. Those who fund
> >the effort can agree how to divide those rights once they are realized.
>
> And do WHAT with them?

You sound like the detractors of the early investors in North America who said of their expeditions that they were 'errands into the wilderness'. These sentiments did not stop expeditions from being formed.

> This is like going to the Sahara and claiming you're
> a millionaire because you have all this sand available.

No its not.

http://edition.cnn.com/2015/03/25/world/opportunity-rover-marathon-milestone/index.html

Its like going to the Sahara with a solar powered 3D printer and announcing you have glassware for sale!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6ajzOaauYa4

> You don't have the infrastructure ON Mars to really do much with that wealth
> (at least not in the lifetime of your settlers or probably even their kids)
> and you can't afford to ship it to Earth

You know even less of the possibilities once you get there, than you know of the possibilities of the hardware that exists right now today on orbit.

>
> > Look at the history of the ITU. The rights they claim are indeed owned by
> > them as established by the many cases they've won against other claims.
> > No doubt it will be the same for interplanetary development.
> >
> >Think about a group of co-workers that contribute $1 per week toward a
> >lottery ticket purchase, and agree to share the winnings among themselves.
> >They don't own those winnings, and may never own those winnings, but they
> >can certainly agree what each will contribute to purchase a chance, and
> >what each will receive based on their contributions.
> >
> >Same here.
>
> So you're suggesting a "tax on those who can't do math" is a viable
> investment strategy?

I am suggesting that people can agree how to pay for an opportunity and split speculative profits. Its done every day. It will be done by those who organize to develop another world. It can be done right now today using assets that are already on orbit.

>
> >
> >> >
> >> >You would do all this subject to UN approval, but use the funds, once
> >> >they were in place, to support your lobbying efforts, which should
> >> >proceed without any trouble.
> >> >
> >>
> >> So another Mook scheme comes down to promises you can't deliver,
> >
> >Your insanity causes you to personalize generic statements and come to
> >woefully erroneous conclusions.
> >
> >Fact is, 160 NEXT ion engines each powered by 8 kW of electrical power each
> >carrying 900 kg of Xenon gas, could propel themselves and the ISS through a
> >delta vee of 16 km/sec. This is more than sufficient to fly to Mars Orbit
> >from Earth Orbit and back.
> >
> >Fact is, by making slight modifications to the ISS, a crew of 8 could be
> >sustained without resupply for up to 3 years. These modifications include
> >the installation of a 3D printer and the recycling of water supplies and
> >air, combined with the use of freeze dried foods rather than fresh foods.
> >All these have been looked at in detail, and all are on the agenda anyway.
>
> They already RECYCLE most of the water and air. And yet it still needs
> resupply on a regular basis.

Then you are familiar with the Mars500 project and making the ISS into a prototype Mars mission module?

http://www.esa.int/Our_Activities/Human_Spaceflight/Mars500/Mars500_study_overview

>
> >
> >Fact is, the experience of the ITU indicates that there is sufficient
> >willingness among UN and others to allow private ownership of Mars to those
> >to trouble themselves to travel to Mars to make that claim.
> >
> >Fact is, the ability to acquire $150 billion asset by spending an
> >additional $5 billion and using it to make a $1 trillion+ claim on an
> >entire planet has a sort of technological and business sweetness to it that
> >if properly structured would be impossible for anyone with $10 billion and
> >more to resist.
>
> Until they run the math.

Nonsense. You're the one who can't do math. You're the one arguing from your gut. When you look at the math, the opportunity is compelling.

> And then they realize what a crock your plan is.

Nonsense. With 40 km/sec exhaust speeds and 10 kW power levels, composed of a 300 kg NEXT ion engine & solar power system with 900 kg of Xenon propellant, can be made into a module, 1,200 kg each - 160 of these modules is sufficient to propel the ISS through a 16 km/sec delta vee. This is sufficient to fly to Mars and back. The math is clear.

> If anyone is going to get there, it's almost certainly going to be with the
> Musk model, NOT yours.

<shrug> Musk is making huge investments toward this goal, which flies in the face of some of your objections. The fact is, the programme I've outlined is not competitive with Musk's programme. Many of the approaches outlined here are very likely to be used by any serious effort to colonize Mars anyway.

3D printing is a huge advantage for any interplanetary pioneer. Extensive recycling is as well. Radiation is an issue for any mission too. Solar powered ion propulsion is a real benefit as well.

A single Falcon Heavy launch could deploy HiVOlt and remediate the van Allen belt. This is a benefit to all missions going forward.

Preparing the ISS for a Mars mission and outfitting it with solar powered ion engines as I've described would explore a way to expand the performance envelope very quickly using sunk costs to good advantage.

For example, a 100 ton payload to LEO that must undergo a delta vee of 6 km/sec using hydrogen oxygen propellant with a 4.5 km/sec exhaust speed can send only 23.6 tons to Mars. The same 100 ton payload to LEO using a 40 km/sec ion engine can send 86.0 tons to mars! So, even if 6 tons is a solar powered ion engine bank you can send 3.4x as much stuff per trip with the solar ion approach!

There are other opportunities as well, that are presently in the research phase, but could be ready relatively shortly. This includes, solar powered 3D printing of habitats on Mars using Mars resources as well as suspended animation using 0.8% hydrogen sulfide in a temperature controlled atmosphere as outlined by Mark Roth.

http://labs.fhcrc.org/roth/

Combining techniques permit sending 50 to 100 people to Mars with a single 100 ton payload to LEO, supplied by self-replicating systems carried along, using CO2 in the Mars atmosphere and water in the Mars soil to make plastics, air, and food, while using sand to make silicon, silica, and structural systems for housing, vehicles, and more.

> >
> >> selling what you don't own, and bribery.
> >
> >Interesting interpretation of business people honestly agreeing to split
> >potential gain, and spending money to explain their intent to political
> >figures important to their private enterprise. In short, planning for the
> >future and lobbying is the way things get done in the world today.
> >
> >> How typical...
> >
> >That you interpret exciting possibilities insanely.
>
> I think you put meant to use the adjective form of insane there.

No, you and the others who make such lame efforts to winge about clearly exciting adventures are the ones who are clearly insane.

>
> Face it, at Musk's prices (who I believe far more than yours) I can buy 60
> Falcon Heavies (and if I'm buying in bulk I'm sure he'll give me a discount)

53 metric tons at $85 million. Then there's insurance, and support logistics. There is also the cost of the hardware you're putting up. Sixty launches is $5.1 billion certainly, but what does the hardware cost that you're putting up? At $2,200 per kg - which is typical - your payload will cost $116.6 million and your 318,000 kg payload will cost you nearly $7 billion - IN ADDITION to your launches.

> and I can get 380,000kg to LEO.

53,000 kg x 60 launches = 318,000 kg.

> Not quite the mass of ISS, but as I can
> optimize for what I want (i.e. I'm not bringing along a lot of useless mass)
> I can probably do a hell of a lot more.

Probably? If you knew some basics you could figure it out using first principles.

The point is, a single Falcon Heavy launch would clear the van Allen hazard, and a second, third, fourth and fifth Falcon Heavy launch would launch would deploy solar powered ion engines and Xenon propellant sufficient to impart 16 km/sec to the ISS. Another five brings up all the hardware with which to cannibalize the ISS to form a Mars Mission module, including supplies, and since this is a SpaceX mission we're envisioning, we use a Dragon capsule upgraded with sufficient propellant to land 7 crew on Mars and return them to orbit.

This is 1/6th the number of launches and 1/6th the cost of not reusing the ISS in this way.

60 launches - $5.1 billion
318,000 kg payload - $7.0 billion

TOTAL $12.1 billion

6 launches - $0.51 billion
31,800 kg payload - $0.70 billion

SUB-TOTAL $1.21 billion

COST-ISS $4.89 billion

TOTAL $5.10 billion

>
> Hell, since I don't need nearly 1/2 the mass of ISS, I'll take 1/2 the
> flights,

The ISS can be cannibalized. The various modules can be reused. The point is, you're saving $7,000 to $10,000 per kg of reused hardware. If you're buying it for $0.01 on the $1.00 - its worth considering.

> use 2 of them to lift up some large Bigelow modules and 28 to lift
> everything else and come out ahead.

It depends on the pricing for the ISS hardware. I pointed out the entire ISS could be sent to Mars with 160 NEXT engines brought up in 80 Progress capsules. 160 NEXT engines could be brought up in four Falcon Heavies.

The modules once acquired, could be reconfigured and modified as needed to sustain multiple mission modules from the hardware, whilst leaving some of the hardware on orbit to continue the ISS primary mission.

> Or I'll wait for him to develop the MCT and lift 100 tonnes at a time. I
> would be surprised if that would cost me $1B a flight, so I still come in
> cheaper.

They will be at market rates. Prices will be likely be lower, but thy will be a good fraction of the total value created, and we also need to lower the price of hardware - the big issue you raised earlier was, what is it worth to go to Mars? That depends on a lot of factors all of which have to be addressed. However, someone like Musk is up to it.

The figures which I've outlined above are very cheap by today's prices. Now, you and others have bitched about me projecting prices that are too low! lol. However, $2,200 per kg matches which I've projected in the model above is way higher than the $0 per kg you've projected. (Its more than just launch cost - you also have to build and operate your payload!)

With suspended animation, self-replicating machinery, and solar powered ion drive through interplanetary space, we can see how 85 people could be sent to Mars for $85 million. With appropriate margins and so forth, we're talking about $2 million per person as a selling price for the space operators.

Now what does a person get for their $2 million?

Passage, obviously, what else? Well, they need a tool kit, like pioneers of old. That's the self-replicating robot swarms.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xK54Bu9HFRw
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZXpkG93KzdY
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5F_SRwrCF6Q


Which would be promoted the same way the jet-age was promoted among the 'jet-set'

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iu5LgEEyxAk

Or is promoted today among the very rich

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NEl7kvUOkLg

In the future the world will be more regulated to benefit the many who cannot leave. So, where will the adventurous go to live the kind of life denied them in the regulated world of the future?

Mars!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sZNzz4SaTYk

[Greg (Strider) Moore]

"William Mook" wrote in message

news:49dd626b-f289-4b34...@googlegroups.com...

It amazes me how you take complex problems and make them even MORE complex.

Especially when transiting the Van Allen belts has a simpler solution, we've
already done it 18 times, do it QUICKLY.

If you think folks are just going to drain the Van Allen belts w/o years of
litigation and the like you're sadly mistaken.

>
>> And because you can't have a crew on-board
>
>Yes you can. Not only can you eliminate the van Allen belt radiation
>hazard, you can also give your crew radio-protectants that let them survive
>even lethal radiation doses.
>
>http://io9.com/5966704/ex-rad-the-drug-that-takes-all-of-your-radiation-worries-away
>

Did you even read the article? It INCREASES chances of survival, it doesn't
assure it. It's designed for acute exposure, not prolonged.

And... IT ACTUALLY HASN'T BEEN TESTED in humans with actual radiation. I'll
give you a little hint, many drugs that work great in the lab don't work the
same in humans. Human physiology is funny that way.

>> and ISS is DESIGNED to
>> be crewed at all times, you're also screwed.
>
>Being crewed is just fine. Without the van Allen belt, and with
>radio-protectants, we're good to go!
>
>> Yes, you might TRY to fly it
>> for months w/o a crew, but you're screwed if anything goes wrong.
>
>I think a better approach is to remediate the van Allen belt over the
>period of time you're rebuilding the ISS for interplanetary cruising.

Again, see above. Not going to happen.

>
>> >
>> >The governments that paid for the ISS in the first place are talking of
>> >breaking up, and this thread wondered about when the ISS would follow
>> >Skylab and Mir and crash into Earth, rather than pay for its continued
>> >operation.
>> >
>> >Now, typically, people who have made a lot of money, are attracted to
>> >these
>> >sorts of opportunities.
>>
>> Which opportunity?
>
>To explore Diemos & Phobos, and lay claim on them, and from that slender
>advantage, control the development of Mars going foward, just as the ITU
>today controls Geosynchronous orbit.
>
>> To die of radiation poisoning while flying through the
>> belts?
>
>Nonsense. HiVolt shows us how to remediate the radiation belt. Onconova
>shows us how to survive lethal radiation doses.

You really believe this nonsense don't you?

>
>> Acquiring an asset that has its electronics fried?
>
>Nope. Critical electronics will be shielded before departure, while the
>major radiation hazard will have been remediated.

So now you've added a LOT more mass and effort into your system. Again,
you've taken a problem and made it far more complex.

You're FAR better off launching some Bigelow capsules and using those.

You don't retrofit something designed for LEO and make it survive deep
space. You design for deep-space from day one. Any freshman engineer could
tell you that.

>
>> To spend billions on something that won't make them a dime?
>
>No, to spend billions on a great adventure, gaining the ownership of two
>moons (and all that is left upon them) and a claim on an entire planet.
>
>http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1204254/Has-mystery-Mars-Monolith-solved.html

And again, a) no government at this time will recognize that ownership and
b) even if they do, so what. You're not going to effectively make money from
it.

>
>> > Governments have the capacity to make hugely irrational decisions with
>> > their assets. A clever person can usually exploit such propensities to
>> > gain hugely as a consequence.
>> >
>> >So, the idea of spending a few billion dollars to get a $150 billion
>> >asset,
>> >and leverage that into a few trillion dollars worth of claims on an
>> >entire
>> >planet, is something that those with $10 billion and more would spend
>> >some
>> >time considering.
>>
>> I'm sure they have,
>
>I am too.
>
>> and they're not lining up to do what you suggest.
>
>Yes they are;
>
>http://www.forbes.com/profile/elon-musk/

If they're lining up to do what you propose, why do you post a
COUNTER-EXAMPLE.

Musk is NOT lining up to take ISS and fly it to Mars. He's far to smart for
that. He's building his system from SCRATCH. He's optimizing for low cost
launches from day one.

>
>> Perhaps they know a lot more than you think.
>
>I am certain they know quite a bit more than you. That's a certainty!

I'm certain Musk knows more than I do.

>
>> Even Musk, who has money to burn isn't coming close to your plan and he
>> DOES
>> intend to go to Mars.
>
>Musk is putting Tesla up for sale. Why? What's he going to use the $75
>billion for?

I can guarantee he's NOT going to buy ISS or do anything close to your plan.
He's not stupid.

He's been quite clear about how what he wants to do and how he's going to
get there.

>
>Oh, to expand SpaceX into a major player, along the lines I've outlined
>here decades ago. Buying up the disused space faring assets of the major
>aerospace companies around the world.

Buying up disused assets is NOT what he's going to do. If it were he
wouldn't be building his own engines.

>
>This will include the ISS, HiVolt, and all the rest.
>
>Musk may be ON Mars before the 50th anniversary of Apollo.

This is the closet thing to reality you've said. Though I highly suspect it
won't happen in 4 years. If you said 55th or 60th, I think you'd be much
closer to the mark.

> If so, he will be using a solar ion propelled upgraded ISS module to do
> it.
>

And this is about the farthest thing from reality you've said here and
that's saying a lot.

>http://www.techtimes.com/articles/33585/20150218/analyst-predicts-apple-will-buy-tesla-for-75-billion-what-are-the-chances.htm
>
>
>> >
>> >In this thread, in response to those who said the ISS will join Mir and
>> >Skylab at the bottom of the ocean, I pointed out that 160 NEXT solar
>> >powered ion engines attached to the station, each with 900 kg of Xenon
>> >gas
>> >propellant, could propel the station and personnel and supplies through
>> >a
>> >delta vee of 16 km/sec. This is sufficient to travel from Low Earth
>> >orbit
>> >to an orbit around any object in the inner solar system, and back to
>> >Earth
>> >orbit again.
>> >
>> >A crew of six to eight, fed with freeze dried foods, not fresh foods as
>> >at
>> >present, supplied with 3D printed clothes, parts, and even drugs,
>> >equipped
>> >with radio protectant drugs, could fly a slightly modified ISS around
>> >the
>> >inner solar system, and back to Earth.
>>
>> Freeze dried foods doesn't really solve much because you need the bulk
>> component to make them useful. WATER.
>
>Which can be recycled.

No shit sherlock. That's the point. You're NOT saving mass in your plan.

>
>> So you're still carrying the same mass
>> along.
>
>Not if you're recycling it.

Umm, of course you're carrying it. They don’t send it out for dry-cleaning.
You have to carry the water along and recycle it. So you're carrying the
mass.

No, those studies are not. From your own article:

"Studies with mice have shown that mice who got a the drug and were exposed
to a lethal dose of gamma radiation had a higher survival rate than mice who
did not receive Ex-Rad. Human tests did not use radiation, but showed that
the drug was not harmful and had no side effects."

Note, HIGHER survival rates, not not assured survival. And the human tests
did NOT use radiation. These studies are FAR from complete.

>
>
>> Much like your engineering.
>
><yawn> If you knew anything about what you were talking about, you would
>realize that you harm your own credibility with statements like these.
>

I have no worries about my credibility.

And who will you be selling it to?

Note, folks went to North America because there were products they could
bring back to Europe to sell. These included furs and old-growth lumber.

What does Mars have that Earth does?

It CAN be done, but it certainly won't.

Let's be clear. Humans are going to Mars. Right now, I'd place Musk as the
odds on favorite. That could change in a week, a year, whatever.

But they sure as HELL will not do so using ISS or anything else currently in
orbit. It will be designed and engineered from the ground up for the
mission.

Again, did you even read the article you linked to?

Umm, no. Musk is making the point of my objections. He's NOT buying ISS. Or
Russian engines or anything like that. He's designing and building his own
from scratch.

>
>3D printing is a huge advantage for any interplanetary pioneer. Extensive
>recycling is as well. Radiation is an issue for any mission too. Solar
>powered ion propulsion is a real benefit as well.

Yes. I'm not objecting to those claims. I'm objecting to your
extrapolations FROM those claims.

>
>A single Falcon Heavy launch could deploy HiVOlt and remediate the van
>Allen belt. This is a benefit to all missions going forward.
>
>Preparing the ISS for a Mars mission and outfitting it with solar powered
>ion engines as I've described would explore a way to expand the performance
>envelope very quickly using sunk costs to good advantage.

Or, since you're already committed to flying Falcon Heavy, use that to
launch a dedicated craft. It's going to be far more cost effective.

>
>For example, a 100 ton payload to LEO that must undergo a delta vee of 6
>km/sec using hydrogen oxygen propellant with a 4.5 km/sec exhaust speed can
>send only 23.6 tons to Mars. The same 100 ton payload to LEO using a 40
>km/sec ion engine can send 86.0 tons to mars! So, even if 6 tons is a
>solar powered ion engine bank you can send 3.4x as much stuff per trip with
>the solar ion approach!
>

Great. Now, instead of flying ISS and bringing along a hell of a lot of
stuff you don't need (many of the modules won't help you) simply BUILD a
dedicated craft from scratch.

Ridiculous. Not going to cost nearly that much. Because again, I'm not
going to rebuild ISS. Most of that payload is going to be FUEL. LOX and
LH2 or kerosene are damn cheap.

>
> TOTAL $12.1 billion
>
> 6 launches - $0.51 billion
> 31,800 kg payload - $0.70 billion

And you plan on landing on Mars with your Red Dragon in those numbers? Hope
your crew doesn't mind litho-braking.

>
> SUB-TOTAL $1.21 billion
>
> COST-ISS $4.89 billion

Not going to happen.

>
> TOTAL $5.10 billion
>>
>> Hell, since I don't need nearly 1/2 the mass of ISS, I'll take 1/2 the
>> flights,
>
>The ISS can be cannibalized. The various modules can be reused. The point
>is, you're saving $7,000 to $10,000 per kg of reused hardware. If you're
>buying it for $0.01 on the $1.00 - its worth considering.

Now you're talking cannibalizing it on orbit. Another huge expense. You
seem to easily wave hands at complex issues.

Dead. Since suspended animation in humans has NEVER been shown to work to
the level you're suggestion.

Mr. Mook, yes, as I said above, we'll be on Mars one of these days. We'll
most likely use SOME of the items suggested above (we're already doing 3D
printing on ISS and will do more of that in the future). The problem isn't
necessarily that your ideas are unworkable (though they often includes
elements that are) but that there are FAR simpler solutions. Musk is
already proving that.

[William Mook]

On Wednesday, March 25, 2015 at 5:06:15 PM UTC+13, Fred J. McCall wrote:
> William Mook <mokme...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >On Tuesday, March 24, 2015 at 7:23:20 AM UTC-4, Fred J. McCall wrote:
> >> William Mook <mokme...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> >
> >> >There are 822 people with $10 billion in wealth in the world in 2014. Their average age is 56. A 2% market penetration fills the slots. By offering them ownership interest in the whole planet, and the right to send a nominee, you could easily get 16 punters paying $0.2 billion for a slot, with a commitment for $1.8 billion once the launch takes place.
> >> >
> >>
> >> So by selling something you don't have the rights to you think you can
> >> make money. There's a name for that sort of thing...
> >
> >In your incessant hatred you have become delusional and as a result cannot read anything sensibly.
> >
>

> Hatred? You DO inflate your own importance, don't you?

See? You are insane! I didn't say you hated ME, but that's what you thought I said - idiot.

>
> >
> >So, let's take a step back and look at the facts.
> >
>

> You wouldn't know a fact if someone sodomized you with one.

Interesting choice of words. I'm sorry to hear you were sodomized by your father at an early age. It explains much.

>
> >
> >Fact is, for a very small fraction of the $150 billion spent on the ISS, that equipment could be converted to a solar powered ion engine propelled interplanetary spacecraft that carried people and cargo throughout the inner solar system.
> >
>

> Poppycock.

That's what George Bush senior calls his penis. Did you know that? lol. He's a child abuser too according to some.

> >
> >The governments that paid for the ISS in the first place are talking of breaking up, and this thread wondered about when the ISS would follow Skylab and Mir and crash into Earth, rather than pay for its continued operation.
> >
>

> Utter hogwash.

Nonsense.

> YOU are talking of them breaking up,

No, I'm talking of using ISS hardware along with the NEXT solar powered ion engine to jump start a mission to Phobos and Diemos and use that to make claims on the moons, and create a group that controls the development of Mars the way the ITU controls the development of Geosynch orbit.

Please try to pay attention! lol.

> but you're a
> nutter.

You're projecting again you abused little boy.

> >
> >Now, typically, people who have made a lot of money, are attracted to these sorts of opportunities. Governments have the capacity to make hugely irrational decisions with their assets. A clever person can usually exploit such propensities to gain hugely as a consequence.
> >
>

> Wrong.

Oh my.. it would be helpful if you actually read about a thing before commenting on it. It would save a helluva lot of embarrassment. Of course people who project their negative emotions on to others don't do that, they'd rather carry around a lot of hateful baggage! lol. Which is too bad for them, and you.

http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/BF00173820#page-1

> Typically people who have made a lot of money are repelled by
> loony ideas.

You're confabulating two different things here and losing track! lol.

> >
> >So, the idea of spending a few billion dollars to get a $150 billion asset, and leverage that into a few trillion dollars worth of claims on an entire planet, is something that those with $10 billion and more would spend some time considering.
> >
>

> Except there's no way to make such a claim.

What 'claim' do you imagine that to be in your demented mind?

> The whole 'thing you have
> no rights to' bit.

People have every right to speculate about the future and arrange their affairs to benefit from such speculation. Of course for an abused little boy like yourself this raises a lot of troubling emotions - emotions you project on to the terrible bad person who takes you out of your comfort zone. lol. Time to grow up boy and face the future.

> >
> >In this thread, in response to those who said the ISS will join Mir and Skylab at the bottom of the ocean, I pointed out that 160 NEXT solar powered ion engines attached to the station, each with 900 kg of Xenon gas propellant, could propel the station and personnel and supplies through a delta vee of 16 km/sec. This is sufficient to travel from Low Earth orbit to an orbit around any object in the inner solar system, and back to Earth orbit again.
> >
>

> I haven't bothered with your arithmetic,

Obviously, such is beyond you.

> but it's a certain bet that
> it's flawed.

haha - NOT!

> All your arithmetic is.

Nonsense.

> >
> >A crew of six to eight, fed with freeze dried foods, not fresh foods as at present, supplied with 3D printed clothes, parts, and even drugs, equipped with radio protectant drugs, could fly a slightly modified ISS around the inner solar system, and back to Earth.
> >
>

> Silly.

You are certainly.

> It's easier to just carry clothes than to carry stuff to print
> clothes out of AND 3-D printers.

Since you haven't done the math, you can't really say that. Since others have done the math, and I've taken the trouble to read the literature on the subject, I can say you're full of it! lol.

> >
> >The Russians and Europeans as well as the Japanese have explored the potential of reducing costs by these changes anyway. The Americans have held radioprotectants secret until the Fukashima disaster. That information has been released publicly, and those drugs are now undergoing FDA review for general use. Private companies have developed techniques to mitigate the radiation in the inner van Allen belt, reducing radiation levels to 1% current levels in a few months.
> >
>

> You are Truly Clueless.

Let's see, I relate a study done years ago by a respected aerospace firm, and because YOU don't know about it, you call ME clueless. Can't you see just a little how your projective disability works? You're the one who is clueless dude. The first step is to admit you have a problem. Then, you can begin to fix it. Learning something new is always uncomfortable. Since it entails admitting you don't know something. People like you who were sexually abused by their parents when they were young always have this sort of problem.

> >
> >>
> >> >
> >> >Once you had a properly structured deal, you could then list it on an appropriate exchange, by subdividing and selling off the rights to the planet in question.
> >> >
> >>
> >> Which rights you don't own.
> >
> >Nonsense. Sending a crew to Mars gives you rights to Mars.
> >
>

> No, it doesn't.

Yes it does.

> Which part of the Treaty on Principles Governing the
> Activities of States in the Exploration and Use of Outer Space,
> including the Moon and Other Celestial Bodies is it that you're
> confused about?

I'm not confused about any of it. YOU ARE! lol. You're projecting again!

Look at the history of the ITU and how they became master of Geosynch orbit! I gave you blow by blow details earlier. Anyone who cared to read that post would see how landing a crew on Phobos and Diemos gives you claims on those bodies and on Mars, the same way orbiting comsats give ITU members rights to Geosynch orbital slots.

> >
> >Those who fund the effort can agree how to divide those rights once they are realized.
> >
>

> Except such granting of rights is prohibited by treaty.

Nonsense.

The Bogotá Treaty claims to Geosynch orbital slots against the ITU were settled in International Court in favour of the ITU, establishing a clear precedent for those who have access to space and a clear and present use for such space.

> <irrelevance elided>

I understand. The math is too difficult for you. That's alright.

> >
> >Think about a group of co-workers that contribute $1 per week toward a lottery ticket purchase, and agree to share the winnings among themselves. They don't own those winnings, and may never own those winnings, but they can certainly agree what each will contribute to purchase a chance, and what each will receive based on their contributions.
> >
>

> Think about if there was a universal law prohibiting such things.

Like playing the numbers in Jersey? lol. You are truly a clueless idiot.

>
> >
> >Same here.
> >
>
> Wrong.

You're wrong again oh abused one.

> >
> >> >
> >> >You would do all this subject to UN approval, but use the funds, once they were in place, to support your lobbying efforts, which should proceed without any trouble.
> >> >
> >>
> >> So another Mook scheme comes down to promises you can't deliver,
> >
> >
> >Your insanity causes you to personalize generic statements and come to woefully erroneous conclusions.
> >
>

> Nope.

Yes.

> This is just like you thinking you can somehow claim the Google
> X-Prize without being qualified to claim it.

Except I have a letter from Google stating that I can! Who woulda thunk it? lol.

You are truly a person of very little intelligence or imagination.

> <list of non-facts elided>

Math too hard for you isn't it? lol.

> >
> >> selling what you don't own, and bribery.
> >
> >Interesting interpretation of business people honestly agreeing to split potential gain, and spending money to explain their intent to political figures important to their private enterprise. In short, planning for the future and lobbying is the way things get done in the world today.
> >
>

> See the Outer Space Treaty.

Look at the history of the ITU following the Bogotá Treaty case in international court.

> >
> >> How typical...
> >
> >That you interpret exciting possibilities insanely.
> >
>

> That you are absolutely ignorant about the rules governing your mad
> schemes.

Less ignorant than you are apparently.

>
> >> --
> >> You are
> >> What you do
> >> When it counts.
> >
> >By this measure you are nothing.
> >
>

> And by continually commenting on .sigs you are clueless.

You routinely change your sigs. You do so because you like doing so I would presume. Why do you like this sig over that sig? Why choose to change it this post rather than another? All these things are of interest to me because they communicate without your knowledge, what you are thinking on a very deep level. This particular sig shows me you have an overweening concern of your importance and how others view that importance. So, obviously, I want you to know, that because of the way you behave toward me and my ideas, in this instance, when things counted, for me at least, you are as nothing. You are a tiny clueless little boy who is dealing with matters he hasn't a smidgen of a clue about. You need to know that.

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

See? This tells me you want to project your insane feelings on to others, since you know deep down, just how insane you are! Likely from that child abuse thing that happened when you were three.

[William Mook]

You're the nutter who cannot open their eyes to the reality that our government is being run by criminals and as a consequence put every decent citizen at risk.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x_4X8OVL5vo
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LFgxqYI28Wc
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mWLis-TVB2w


On Wednesday, March 25, 2015 at 5:10:03 PM UTC+13, Fred J. McCall wrote:
> And So Mookie once again reveals himself as an insane conspiracy
> theory nutter.

[William Mook]

I didn't come up with remediation of the Van Allen Belt, Tethers Unlimited did. It doesn't make things more complex, it simplifies them.

>
> Especially when transiting the Van Allen belts has a simpler solution, we've
> already done it 18 times, do it QUICKLY.

At what cost? We cannot use solar powered ion engines, which we already have, to transition the Van Allen belts quickly. We can only use chemical rockets to do that. This reduces our useful plus inert load for every 100 tons from 86 tons to 23 tons.

What does it cost to remediate the Van Allen belts for a long period of time? Less than 100 tons on orbit.

So, the next question is, how many tons are you sending to Mars?

If you're sending 1 ton every synodic period, and its unpiloted, you just harden your hardware and you're good to go.

If you're sending 100 tons and more every synodic period, and its piloted, you've got to put up 340 tons to get that 100 tons to target. In this case, it makes sense to invest 100 tons on Van Allen remediation, and send 206 tons to Mars - with the SAME 340 tons to orbit in both cases. You're cost is the same, you're payload to Mars is more than doubled.

> If you think folks are just going to drain the Van Allen belts w/o years of
> litigation and the like you're sadly mistaken.

You just do it under existing rules and ask for forgiveness after if necessary. In the mean time you've cut your cost to Mars in half.

> >
> >> And because you can't have a crew on-board
> >
> >Yes you can. Not only can you eliminate the van Allen belt radiation
> >hazard, you can also give your crew radio-protectants that let them survive
> >even lethal radiation doses.
> >
> >http://io9.com/5966704/ex-rad-the-drug-that-takes-all-of-your-radiation-worries-away
> >
>
> Did you even read the article? It INCREASES chances of survival, it doesn't
> assure it. It's designed for acute exposure, not prolonged.

Prolonged exposure is 1/5th the level that would cause health effects during the mission, and the radioprotectants are used precisely before or after acute exposure.

Without the Van Allen belt we are left with cosmic and solar radiation.

NASA reports that Curiosity was exposed to 1.8 milliSieverts per day in interplanetary space. That's 657.45 milliSieverts per year. In transit. A five year mission is 3,287.25 milliSieverts at this level.

http://www.nasa.gov/home/hqnews/2013/may/HQ_13-165_MSL_Radiation_Findings.html

Now, consider that 64,000 milliSieverts is the NON-FATAL dose to Albert Stevens over a 21 year period. This is an average rate of 3,0000 milliSieverts per year. Five times higher than that required for a Mars mission.

4,500 milliSieverts per event is the lower fatality limit according to the data generated by the Goiânia accident.

The radioprotectants outlined would be effective reducing mortality to radiation levels up to 30,000 Millisieverts per event - either taken before an expected event or after.

> And... IT ACTUALLY HASN'T BEEN TESTED in humans with actual radiation.

There are dozens of radioprotectants used every day for people receiving radiation treatment for cancer. These include, in addition to limited use of Ex-Rad, CBLB502 a compound being with an ability to suppresses apoptotic cell death in hematopoietic and gastrointestinal cells, amifostine 'WR2721' the first selective-target and broad-spectrum radioprotector, upregulates DNA repair, Filgrastim ('Neupogen') a hematopoietic countermeasure of acute radiation syndrome (ARS) for cancer patients, Pegfilgrastim ('Neulasta') longer acting than its parent derivative Filgrastim, Sargramostim ('leukine') similar in use to filgrastim, CLT-008 a drug with an ability to excel blood neutrophil recovery, N-acetyl cysteine protects against DNA damage, suggested to be comparable to amifostine, 5-Androstenediol a compound that acts as a gastrointestinal countermeasure to ARS, Rx100 an analog of lysophosphatidic acid used as a gastrointestinal countermeasure to ARS, BIO 300 a low cost Genistein derivative with an ability to temporarily lock cells in their most radioresistant mitosis phase, AEOL-10150 a manganoporphyrin catalytic antioxidant.

The Armed Forces Radiobiology Research Institute has studied these drugs and others in combination for years, to give US soldiers a leg-up in a nuclear conflict. They have classified much of this research. The list above is a short one as a consequence.

No doubt the Russians and Chinese have similar databases.

The point is, we have the technology in place today, to survive the sort of trip we're contemplating here. All we need is a willingness to make use of it.

> I'll
> give you a little hint, many drugs that work great in the lab don't work the
> same in humans. Human physiology is funny that way.

I'll give you a bigger hint, humans are routinely exposed to radiation that causes acute radiation syndrome ARS, when being treated for cancer. These humans are routinely given treatments that allow them to survive these massive radiation exposures.

There is a list of off the shelf radioprotectants approved for use in the medical community. There is a larger, and more pervasive list, approved for use in the military community, but kept secret.

> >> and ISS is DESIGNED to
> >> be crewed at all times, you're also screwed.
> >
> >Being crewed is just fine. Without the van Allen belt, and with
> >radio-protectants, we're good to go!
> >
> >> Yes, you might TRY to fly it
> >> for months w/o a crew, but you're screwed if anything goes wrong.
> >
> >I think a better approach is to remediate the van Allen belt over the
> >period of time you're rebuilding the ISS for interplanetary cruising.
>
> Again, see above. Not going to happen.

You got all the details wrong. Without the radiation belt exposure is only 20% of troubling levels and with radioprotectants astronauts can survive solar storms.

> >
> >> >
> >> >The governments that paid for the ISS in the first place are talking of
> >> >breaking up, and this thread wondered about when the ISS would follow
> >> >Skylab and Mir and crash into Earth, rather than pay for its continued
> >> >operation.
> >> >
> >> >Now, typically, people who have made a lot of money, are attracted to
> >> >these
> >> >sorts of opportunities.
> >>
> >> Which opportunity?
> >
> >To explore Diemos & Phobos, and lay claim on them, and from that slender
> >advantage, control the development of Mars going foward, just as the ITU
> >today controls Geosynchronous orbit.
> >
> >> To die of radiation poisoning while flying through the
> >> belts?
> >
> >Nonsense. HiVolt shows us how to remediate the radiation belt. Onconova
> >shows us how to survive lethal radiation doses.
>
> You really believe this nonsense don't you?

Only because I know the facts. You on the other hand, not so much.

> >
> >> Acquiring an asset that has its electronics fried?
> >
> >Nope. Critical electronics will be shielded before departure, while the
> >major radiation hazard will have been remediated.
>
> So now you've added a LOT more mass and effort into your system. Again,
> you've taken a problem and made it far more complex.

Nonsense. A single Falcon Heavy orbits sufficient payload to remediate the van Allen radiation belt.

http://www.tethers.com/hivolt.html

> You're FAR better off launching some Bigelow capsules and using those.

If the Bigelow capsules had a 17 year record of proven performance and the same volume and capacities on board - I would agree - we might want to risk a crew for five years in interplanetary space with them. Since this is NOT the case, I would say Begelow approach might be ready for prime time in five years with effort.

> You don't retrofit something designed for LEO and make it survive deep
> space.

Other than radiation, what other factors do you imagine make ISS modules unsuitable for travel through interplanetary space?

> You design for deep-space from day one.

Other than radiation, name five SUBSTANTIVE ENGINEERING differences between LEO and the flight through the inner solar system?

> Any freshman engineer could
> tell you that.

Any graduate engineer would know the freshman doesn't know his ass from a hole in the ground when he said that.

> >
> >> To spend billions on something that won't make them a dime?
> >
> >No, to spend billions on a great adventure, gaining the ownership of two
> >moons (and all that is left upon them) and a claim on an entire planet.
> >
> >http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1204254/Has-mystery-Mars-Monolith-solved.html
>
> And again, a) no government at this time will recognize that ownership

My comments are based on a careful review of facts. Yours are based on your gut feelings.

Fact is, the UN will recognize claims made by crews landed on Diemos and Phobos, with plans for further missions to follow, based on actual court records involving the ITU and attempts to claim ownership of Geosynch slots they manage.

> and
> b) even if they do, so what.

Then you can sell deeds to pioneers who come to Mars in your spaceships.

> You're not going to effectively make money from
> it.

YOU may not know how to make money from this, but I assure you, those who invest in this programme WILL! lol. You imagine that just because you can't think of a thing, it can't be done!

Look, Musk is cutting his own throat lowering the cost of space access, unless and until he can increase demand. There are temporary fixes for this problem, building a large wireless hotspot for the globe can only go so far. Ditto for power satellites. Tourism to orbit, and the moon, with return of the travelers, are viewed as risky, expensive and wasteful excesses of a class of people too wealthy for an over-populated world of limits.

The only opportunity Musk has to permanently increase demand for space access, in a way that is acceptable to the Agenda 21 crowd at the UN, is to point out that;

(1) over their life, multi-millionaires and billionaires, pollute the earth far more than the majority of folks,

(2) constraining the willful, capable, intelligent, and spirited, persons who generally become incredibly wealthy, creates unwanted push back for global political agendas,

(3) for this reason PERMANENTLY REMOVING such spirited and willful individuals from the earth, in a way that they SELF SELECT for such removal, and pay large fees for doing so, is a definite benefit to global managers.

These are the sorts of white papers and talking points that are being circulated today among the UN and other high level study groups.

Now, what motivates someone to spend $2 million to $5 million to leave Earth permanently?

(1) Deed of ownership of something,
(2) High probability of survival,
(3) A competitive, open, and free environment to compete,
(4) Political liberties not available on Earth,
(5) Political and economic stability not available on Earth,

this is just the short list.

There are 37.6 million families with wealth over $1 million world wide. These are High Net Worth Individuals (HNWI) There are 1,645 families with $1 billion or more world wide. These are billionaires.

Of interest to Musk are the 86,800 families with $50 million or more world wide. These are Ultra High Net Worth Individuals (UHNWI). A family of four, paying $2.5 million for passage, for each, is $10 million. Another $10 million for a deed to a substantial amount of property, with alloidal title, which is no longer available on Earth, with the rights to operate self-replicating machinery, nuclear facilities, etc., which is not permitted on Earth. This leaves the poorest of these families with $30 million or more of their original $50 million - which they can put in the Mars Branch of the Interplanetary Bank, not exposed to any of the systemic risks of Earth based banks.

https://publications.credit-suisse.com/tasks/render/file/?fileID=5521F296-D460-2B88-081889DB12817E02

www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/wp/2013/wp1354.pdf

The primary motivator for early adopters is preservation of wealth in an increasingly uncertain economic environment.

So, Musk, and other owners of Mars, would also own the Mars central bank, to which folks could transfer their wealth.

Now with a market penetration of 4.5% against these 86,800 families, and with 4 persons per family making their way to Mars, we have the potential to generate 15,624 people per year.

Now another advantage of ion propulsion appears. With ion propulsion, departures can occur almost any time. With chemical boosters, they cannot.

With 85 persons per 100 ton payload (assuming suspended animation) we have a launch every other day. We also have $106.25 million per day for passage, $106.25 million per day for property rights, and at least another $318.75 million per day transferred from Earth banks to Mars bank. With a 20 to 1 leverage, Mars bank's loan capacity increases by $6.3 billion per day! This can be used to develop Mars and solar system resources and create wealth on an unprecedented scale.

With a 1.14% growth rate in population on Mars, and the arrival of 15,624 people per year. In 50 years at this rate, Mars' population exceeds 1 million persons, and more people are born on Mars each year than arrive in this way.

> >
> >> > Governments have the capacity to make hugely irrational decisions with
> >> > their assets. A clever person can usually exploit such propensities to
> >> > gain hugely as a consequence.
> >> >
> >> >So, the idea of spending a few billion dollars to get a $150 billion
> >> >asset,
> >> >and leverage that into a few trillion dollars worth of claims on an
> >> >entire
> >> >planet, is something that those with $10 billion and more would spend
> >> >some
> >> >time considering.
> >>
> >> I'm sure they have,
> >
> >I am too.
> >
> >> and they're not lining up to do what you suggest.
> >
> >Yes they are;
> >
> >http://www.forbes.com/profile/elon-musk/
>
> If they're lining up to do what you propose, why do you post a
> COUNTER-EXAMPLE.
>
> Musk is NOT lining up to take ISS and fly it to Mars.

You have no idea what Musk is doing. You presume to know for no good reason.

> He's far to smart for
> that.

He's smart no doubt, and capable. Yet enlisting Musk in this way is dishonest, since you have no idea what Musk is doing.

> He's building his system from SCRATCH.

That's demonstrably not true. He purchased TRW's pintle fed engine technology from them and built around this technology a low cost highly reusable vehicle, very much along the lines as I described to NASA in 1996.

> He's optimizing for low cost
> launches from day one.

That's correct. Now, what's more likely? That he take proven technology already in place? Or spread his resources and increase risks further by developing unproven technologies for mission critical applications?

I think, as in the TRW acquisition, that he will sell Tesla and use the $75 billion to fund further acquisitions in aerospace going forward, as I suggested 10 years ago.

> >
> >> Perhaps they know a lot more than you think.
> >
> >I am certain they know quite a bit more than you. That's a certainty!
>
> I'm certain Musk knows more than I do.

Yes, and I am equally certain that your presumption that you know what he thinks about the ISS and its utility in taking possession of Mars soonest, is based on nothing more than your gut feeling - nothing more than a lame attempt to use a respected party to give credence to your clueless ranting.

> >
> >> Even Musk, who has money to burn isn't coming close to your plan and he
> >> DOES
> >> intend to go to Mars.
> >
> >Musk is putting Tesla up for sale. Why? What's he going to use the $75
> >billion for?
>
> I can guarantee he's NOT going to buy ISS or do anything close to your plan.
> He's not stupid.

He purchased TRW's space faring assets, an asset I outlined as critical back in 1996. He will likely use $75 billion to buy other disused assets. There is no reason in the world he would exclude the ISS and NEXT ion propulsion system from his analysis. Any competent engineer would come to the same conclusions I have.

> He's been quite clear about how what he wants to do and how he's going to
> get there.

Its also quite clear that you have absolutely no knowledge that hasn't appeared in a PR hand out. If you actually had some real relevant idea of the disposition of space faring assets on this planet, you would actually see that the $75 billion war chest will buy up disused under-valued space faring assets and put them toward going to Mars.

Making a claim on Mars, establishing a bank on Mars, independent of the Credit Default Swaps and other systemic risks of Earth, would easily garner 4.5% of the UHNWI families in the world, and support a 7 flights every two weeks of his 100 ton payload carrying 85 passengers.

> >
> >Oh, to expand SpaceX into a major player, along the lines I've outlined
> >here decades ago. Buying up the disused space faring assets of the major
> >aerospace companies around the world.
>
> Buying up disused assets is NOT what he's going to do.

Its how he got his pintle fed engines from TRW. It will be how he will expand.

> If it were he
> wouldn't be building his own engines.

You don't know much about the design of his engines do you?

> >
> >This will include the ISS, HiVolt, and all the rest.
> >
> >Musk may be ON Mars before the 50th anniversary of Apollo.
>
> This is the closet thing to reality you've said.

To achieve that reality requires real things be done with real equipment already in place. To understand what choices Musk has you have to understand what assets are out there, what they're good for, and how they might be applied toward your goal.

> Though I highly suspect it
> won't happen in 4 years. If you said 55th or 60th, I think you'd be much
> closer to the mark.

Flying a mission the remediate the van Allen belt would get lots of attention. Working with the Russians to sell off their section of ISS and retrofit it for deep space travel along the lines I've described, would get him ready in a matter of months. He could be on Mars in 4 years if he did that.

If he chose to use Bigelow modules or some other approach, his costs increase, his time table lengthens, and his risks go up.

>
> > If so, he will be using a solar ion propelled upgraded ISS module to do
> > it.
> >
>
> And this is about the farthest thing from reality you've said here and
> that's saying a lot.

There is absolutely no basis in reality for your statement. A proven ISS module appropriately equipped, is perfectly usable as an interplanetary mission module.

> >http://www.techtimes.com/articles/33585/20150218/analyst-predicts-apple-will-buy-tesla-for-75-billion-what-are-the-chances.htm
> >
> >
> >> >
> >> >In this thread, in response to those who said the ISS will join Mir and
> >> >Skylab at the bottom of the ocean, I pointed out that 160 NEXT solar
> >> >powered ion engines attached to the station, each with 900 kg of Xenon
> >> >gas
> >> >propellant, could propel the station and personnel and supplies through
> >> >a
> >> >delta vee of 16 km/sec. This is sufficient to travel from Low Earth
> >> >orbit
> >> >to an orbit around any object in the inner solar system, and back to
> >> >Earth
> >> >orbit again.
> >> >
> >> >A crew of six to eight, fed with freeze dried foods, not fresh foods as
> >> >at
> >> >present, supplied with 3D printed clothes, parts, and even drugs,
> >> >equipped
> >> >with radio protectant drugs, could fly a slightly modified ISS around
> >> >the
> >> >inner solar system, and back to Earth.
> >>
> >> Freeze dried foods doesn't really solve much because you need the bulk
> >> component to make them useful. WATER.
> >
> >Which can be recycled.
>
> No shit sherlock.

Yep.

> That's the point. You're NOT saving mass in your plan.

We're not communicating because you're too stupid to see what I'm saving. Any reasonable person could not say what you just said. Therefore you are being unreasonably stupid.

Look... in terms of grams per day we have for an adult human male of average build;

In 400 Potable Water
In 2564 Food & Beverages
In 686 Oxygen

Total 3650

Out 857 Water vapor
Out 857 CO2
Out 1936 Human Waste

Total 3650

Of this total 2,707.6 grams of the 3,650 grams each day is water. Water consumed directly and water consumed indirectly in Food and Beverages.

In a closed system water extracted from the atmosphere, and water extracted from human waste, totals 2,707.6 grams needed on the input side.

The Russian section handles only 10% of this total. Its an experiment nothing more. A true closed cycle system would recover 100% of this total and reduce the amount tremendously.

Furthermore, the ISS wastes a lot of mass in cleaning supplies, toilet paper and the like. Figuring out how to recycle these materials for full reuse is well within our capacity to achieve.

http://www.gizmag.com/mcor-iris-paper-3d-printer/32903/

256.4 grams per person per day is all that is required in an efficient system. Everything else is recycled. Thus, over 5 years 468.2 kg of freeze dried food packets are needed.

With the current regime of fresh food, even with partial recycling of the 400 grams of potable water per day, you need over 3 kg per day - and with disposables like kleenex and toilet paper, napkins and washcloths, you expend more than 5 kg per day. This is over 9.1 tonnes over five years per person. A crew of 8 would need nearly 73 tonnes! Vs less than 4 tonnes with complete recycling.

Now, what about the 0.686 kg per day per person of oxygen? Well, this translates into 0.857 kg per day of carbon-dioxide. This is easily absorbed in a Sabatier reactor to form methane and water.

CO2 + 4 H2 --> CH4 + 2 H2O

This already occurs in the ISS. The next step is not. This involves taking microwaves to break the CH4 down into hydrogen and elemental carbon

CH4 + uwaves --> C + 2 H2

The water is broken down into hydrogen and oxygen again. The oxygen is available for rebreathing, while the hydrogen recovered from the carbon is added to the hydrogen recovered from the water in this process.

It takes 300 watts per person to power this process and provide complete recycling of the air.

> >
> >> So you're still carrying the same mass
> >> along.
> >
> >Not if you're recycling it.
>
> Umm, of course you're carrying it. They don't send it out for dry-cleaning.

You're being especially stupid. Look at the manifest of the ISS. Each astronaut consumes 5 kg or more per day. Look at what they're consuming. Being able to take used toilet paper and produce new toilet paper, used kleenex and produce new kleenex, used wash rags and produce new wash rags, CO2 to produce O2 and elemental carbon - take ALL water and recycle it 100% - and you reduce this from 5 kg per day - or 9.1 tonnes per person over 5 years - to 0.256 kg per day or less than 0.486 tonnes per person over 5 years.

In short, by adding a few 100 kg of appropriate technology per person, you've radically reduced the consumption.

> You have to carry the water along and recycle it.

Yes, you have to carry along a certain supply. That supply isn't large.

> So you're carrying the
> mass.

You're carrying some mass, but you have to understand why you're carrying it and what must be done to reduce it. Saying that ISS is recycling urine to produce SOME potable water - is not the same as saying ISS has a fully 100% closed cycle system to retrieve all water and reuse it - to retrieve all CO2 and reuse the O2 broken from it, etc.

Do 100% recycling and you reduce 73 tonnes for a 5 year interplanetary mission for 6 people to less than 4 tonnes for the same mission and crew.

Look at the date on the article and look at more recent articles. I just googled a popular easily accessible article. If you have access to scientific literature look up what the the Fels Institute for Molecular Biology and Cancer Research in Philadelphia says. Researchers there concluded in 2014 that Results show before and after exposure to ionizing radiation provides dose dependent protection against radiation-induced damage. Treatment was found to result in a more rapid recovery of the hematopoeietic system. These results suggest that the drug is a safe and effective radioprotectant and could be a novel agent for use in radiobiological disasters.

Like I said, the US military has been stocking this stuff for who knows how long. Its release into the public market suggests we already have all we need to go to Mars.

I didn't mean to suggest that the article I cited was definitive. I didn't want to cite Japanese language articles here. I didn't want to cite scientific papers that have large pay walls around them.

However, you have taken some details from the articles I did cite and read them wrongly.

Ex-Rad isn't the ONLY radioprotectant out there. It is suggestive of what is possible TODAY. Right now. Every day people with cancer are treated with massive doses of radiation. Every day they take radioprotectants. Doctors are besiesging the FDA for approvals to try anything to improve survival rate an quality of life of these patients.

So, things are not the way you would have us believe. We're good to go on the radiation front.

> And the human tests
> did NOT use radiation.

There are large numbers of radioprotectants used every day by cancer patients receiving massive doses of radiation. Fukushima workers received Ex-rad according to news articles in Japan. It was reported that they came from US military research, that was formerly classified.

> These studies are FAR from complete.

The study I cited was easily available. Look deeper and with greater understanding and you will see we have everything we need for competent people to put together the treatments we need to survive the radiation hazards today.

> >
> >
> >> Much like your engineering.
> >
> ><yawn> If you knew anything about what you were talking about, you would
> >realize that you harm your own credibility with statements like these.
> >
>
> I have no worries about my credibility.

Me either. I'm not the one making huge gaffs and stupid mistakes like you are.

> >> There are HUGE differences.
> >
> >Between reality and your thoughts about reality - yeah.
> >
> >>
> >> >
> >> >The Russians and Europeans as well as the Japanese have explored the
> >> >potential of reducing costs by these changes anyway. The Americans have
> >> >held radioprotectants secret until the Fukashima disaster. That
> >> >information has been released publicly, and those drugs are now
> >> >undergoing
> >> >FDA review for general use. Private companies have developed techniques
> >> >to
> >> >mitigate the radiation in the inner van Allen belt, reducing radiation
> >> >levels to 1% current levels in a few months.
> >>
> >> Which adds to your COSTS.
> >
> >Not by much.

I should add, it adds a single Falcon Heavy launch, and even counting that it more than doubles your payloads on Mars by permitting the use of efficient solar ion engines.

> >
> >> >
> >> >>
> >> >> >
> >> >> >Once you had a properly structured deal, you could then list it on an
> >> >> >appropriate exchange, by subdividing and selling off the rights to
> >> >> >the
> >> >> >planet in question.
> >> >> >
> >> >>
> >> >> Which rights you don't own.
> >> >
> >> >Nonsense. Sending a crew to Mars gives you rights to Mars. Those who
> >> >fund
> >> >the effort can agree how to divide those rights once they are realized.
> >>
> >> And do WHAT with them?
> >
> >You sound like the detractors of the early investors in North America who
> >said of their expeditions that they were 'errands into the wilderness'.
> >These sentiments did not stop expeditions from being formed.
> >
> >> This is like going to the Sahara and claiming you're
> >> a millionaire because you have all this sand available.
> >
> >No its not.
> >
> >http://edition.cnn.com/2015/03/25/world/opportunity-rover-marathon-milestone/index.html
> >
> >Its like going to the Sahara with a solar powered 3D printer and announcing
> >you have glassware for sale!
>
> And who will you be selling it to?

Anyone who wanted it.

> Note, folks went to North America because there were products they could
> bring back to Europe to sell. These included furs and old-growth lumber.
>
> What does Mars have that Earth does?

Mars has things Earth does not - economic stability, political stability, freedom, peace and prosperity.

It certainly will. No one will make the investments necessary without understanding how their effort will be valued going forward.

> Let's be clear. Humans are going to Mars. Right now, I'd place Musk as the
> odds on favorite. That could change in a week, a year, whatever.
>
> But they sure as HELL will not do so using ISS or anything else currently in
> orbit.

Nonsense. At present it costs $8,000+ per kg to put anything on orbit that's useful. The ISS represents a $150 billion investment. Any usable product aboard the ISS today that can be used to go to Mars, if it were available for less than $8,000 per kg, would be a bargain.

> It will be designed and engineered from the ground up for the
> mission.

The ISS modules were designed and engineered ground up for long duration human habitation. This was cited in the original justification for the project as a reason for doing ISS. Nothing has changed that makes ISS modules less suitable for travel through the inner solar system. Nothing.

Yes.

Yes.

> Musk is making the point of my objections.

Nonsense.

> He's NOT buying ISS. Or
> Russian engines or anything like that.

You don't know that.

> He's designing and building his own
> from scratch.

No, he purchased the pintle fed engine technology from TRW. That's how SpaceX got started. He improved a proven design around a proven tool set that he obtained at bargain basement price from a contractor who didn't see the value in what they had. Musk did, and acquired the assets and made monumental improvements in them.

>
> >
> >3D printing is a huge advantage for any interplanetary pioneer. Extensive
> >recycling is as well. Radiation is an issue for any mission too. Solar
> >powered ion propulsion is a real benefit as well.
>
> Yes. I'm not objecting to those claims. I'm objecting to your
> extrapolations FROM those claims.

The ISS all 400+ tonnes of it can be sent through a delta vee of 16 km/sec with the addition of NEXT solar powered ion engines - and this gives it the capacity to travel to Diemos and Phobos and back. This gives anyone carrying out this mission, the right to claim Diemos and Phobos and control the development of Mars along the lines the ITU uses to maintain control of Geosynch orbit with the UN.

>
> >
> >A single Falcon Heavy launch could deploy HiVOlt and remediate the van
> >Allen belt. This is a benefit to all missions going forward.
> >
> >Preparing the ISS for a Mars mission and outfitting it with solar powered
> >ion engines as I've described would explore a way to expand the performance
> >envelope very quickly using sunk costs to good advantage.
>
> Or, since you're already committed to flying Falcon Heavy, use that to
> launch a dedicated craft. It's going to be far more cost effective.
>
> >
> >For example, a 100 ton payload to LEO that must undergo a delta vee of 6
> >km/sec using hydrogen oxygen propellant with a 4.5 km/sec exhaust speed can
> >send only 23.6 tons to Mars. The same 100 ton payload to LEO using a 40
> >km/sec ion engine can send 86.0 tons to mars! So, even if 6 tons is a
> >solar powered ion engine bank you can send 3.4x as much stuff per trip with
> >the solar ion approach!
> >
>
> Great. Now, instead of flying ISS and bringing along a hell of a lot of
> stuff you don't need (many of the modules won't help you) simply BUILD a
> dedicated craft from scratch.

Its a classic make/buy decision. You haven't done it. I have. I agree, you don't need ALL the modules, just some of them. It saves you money if you can get the ISS modules at a cut rate price.

The cost of hardware is low in this estimate.

> Not going to cost nearly that much.

I took the quoted price from SpaceX's own site, and the lowest price I could find from qualifed aerospace vendors in India. Where do you get the idea you could get a lower price? In any case, its going to cost more than $0 you projected.

> Because again, I'm not
> going to rebuild ISS.

Wait a minute, if I can take 300 tonnes of hardware off the station, and add another 100 tonnes of hardware, and propellant, and get the equivalent of launching 400 tonnes form Earth, I've just cut my costs by 75%.

> Most of that payload is going to be FUEL. LOX and
> LH2 or kerosene are damn cheap.

Not when you launch it into orbit at 2,200 per kg, and put it in tank costing $10,000 per kg.

>
>
> >
> > TOTAL $12.1 billion
> >
> > 6 launches - $0.51 billion
> > 31,800 kg payload - $0.70 billion
>
> And you plan on landing on Mars with your Red Dragon in those numbers?

No, this is just to land on Diemos and Phobos and make claims on Mars.

> Hope
> your crew doesn't mind litho-braking.

<shrug> You like to read things in a way that I didn't write them. So be it.

> >
> > SUB-TOTAL $1.21 billion
> >
> > COST-ISS $4.89 billion
>
> Not going to happen.

You don't know that.

> >
> > TOTAL $5.10 billion
> >>
> >> Hell, since I don't need nearly 1/2 the mass of ISS, I'll take 1/2 the
> >> flights,
> >
> >The ISS can be cannibalized. The various modules can be reused. The point
> >is, you're saving $7,000 to $10,000 per kg of reused hardware. If you're
> >buying it for $0.01 on the $1.00 - its worth considering.
>
> Now you're talking cannibalizing it on orbit. Another huge expense.

What's expensive about a crew of 8 astronauts installing a few tons of hardware?

> You
> seem to easily wave hands at complex issues.

You seem to confuse complexity with expense.

Nonsense.

> Since suspended animation in humans has NEVER been shown to work to
> the level you're suggestion.

That's not true Mark Roth has case histories of people who have been frozen and reanimated after days and months in suspended animation.

> Mr. Mook, yes, as I said above, we'll be on Mars one of these days. We'll
> most likely use SOME of the items suggested above (we're already doing 3D
> printing on ISS and will do more of that in the future). The problem isn't
> necessarily that your ideas are unworkable (though they often includes
> elements that are) but that there are FAR simpler solutions. Musk is
> already proving that.

You're conception of what Mr. Musk has done is flawed. He has achieved much, but he has done it by being a careful and prudent business person looking at what actually works and building on that.

[bob haller]

For HISTORIC reasons ISS at end of life / use should be made safe for long term unmanned storage, attach a solar poweed beacon and put in a high orbit so perhaps it can be visited now and then. high enough so drag isnt a problem.....

[bob haller]

On Thursday, March 26, 2015 at 11:31:10 AM UTC-4, Fred J. McCall wrote:

> bob haller <hal...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> >
> >For HISTORIC reasons ISS at end of life / use should be made safe for long term unmanned storage, attach a solar poweed beacon and put in a high orbit so perhaps it can be visited now and then. high enough so drag isnt a problem.....
> >
>

> Here we go again with the Bobbert 'Spend Billions For History' plan.
>
> No, Bobbert, it should be safely reentered so it can burn up.

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

some small ion engines and lots of patience can raise its orbit over time.

[Greg (Strider) Moore]

"Fred J. McCall" wrote in message
news:qe98hat049cdm5di0...@4ax.com...

>Here we go again with the Bobbert 'Spend Billions For History' plan.
>
>No, Bobbert, it should be safely reentered so it can burn up.

Not to really side with Bob, but this is hardly billions. I'd guess a large
enough booster could be launched on a Falcon Heavy or even Falcon.

And honestly, this is at least far more reasonable than trying to send it to
Mars. But that's not saying much.

[William Mook]

The NEXT ion engine with its 40 km/sec exhaust speed produces 256 millinewtons of thrust with a 6.7 kW engine. More advanced versions run a 20 kW produce 50 km/sec exhaust speed and produce 650 millinewtons of thrust.

Now 650 millinewtons is 66.2 grams. About the same force that 12 US quarter dollars exert in a 1 gee gravity field. The entire power conditioning unit along with ultra-light ultra-efficient solar collectors and engine masses less than 300 kg. With a 900 kg tank of liquid Xenon contained in a sphere 663 mm in diameter (26 inches) is sufficient to propel this advanced setup with no payload to a speed of 69.3 km/sec. Two circular ultra-thin multi-junction solar collectors operating a 55% overall efficiency are 4114 mm in diameter. Quite compact.

160 of these attached to the 419,600 kg ISS along its 73.3 meter main structure, increases its total mass to 611,600 kg of which 144,000 kg is Xenon propellant. Attached in a line this is Ejected at 50 km/sec this has the capacity to impart 18.8 km/sec delta vee to the station.

Now, the system thrust is power limited, 20 kW per module, 160 modules, 3.2 MW of power overall. This limits mass flow rate to 2.08 grams per second. Thus to expend 144,000 kg at this rate requires 69.2 million seconds. That's 2.194 years!! 2 years 2 months 10 days.

To raise the orbit to any of the Lagrange points requires a delta vee of 2.95 km/sec. This will expend 21,982 kg of Xenon assuming the same starting mass. At 2.08 grams per second this will require 11.5 million seconds. That's 19 weeks! Not long at all.

If we're going to Lagrange Point 1, why not go to Mars?

http://earthweb.ess.washington.edu/ess-102/FALL12/Lecture28_PlanetaryMotionandOrbitalMechanics.pdf

All we have to do is travel 0.8 km/sec faster than the Earth is traveling around the sun. That means we must have a hyperbolic excess velocity of 0.8 km/sec. This means we must leave Earth's surface at a speed of 11.23 km/sec. If we're already in Earth orbit moving at 7.8 km/sec that means we are good to go with an additional 3.43 km/sec.

With the setup just described this will take 40,549 kg of Xenon to achieve, which will require 19.5 million seconds or 32 weeks 2 days. 7.4 months.

It will take another 8.4 months to travel to Mars, and then be captured by Mars when it travels around that planet since the vehicle is moving slower than Mars, and by arriving at the right angle, the two velocities subtract, pulled into orbit by Mars.

Using a less efficient, powerful atomic powered ion engine, this sort of mission has been proposed before.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8vblN33OJCg

Once on Mars orbit, the ion engine is used, at a lower power setting due to the increased distance from the Sun, to lower the orbit, and enter orbits around Diemos and then Phobos.

At each moon a very modest MMU is sufficient to send astronauts to the surface of these moons and bring them back.

http://i.telegraph.co.uk/multimedia/archive/01457/monolith1_1457351c.jpg
http://planetologia.elte.hu/ipcd/miigaikphobos.jpg
https://rightbasicbuilding.files.wordpress.com/2010/05/phobos_maxridge_2010.jpg
http://planetologia.elte.hu/phobos-deimos-map.jpg
https://rightbasicbuilding.files.wordpress.com/2009/03/deimos_maxridge.jpg

The next Earth-Mars Synod is 22 May 2016. Closest Earth-Mars distance occurs on May 30, 2016 (~75.3 million kilometers) 0.50322 AU = 75,280,705.56 km

ISS has to attain transfer speed 3 months after that, Sunday August 28, 2016 and we must start our boost 7.4 months before that, Saturday January 16, 2016.

If we were ready to go by then, we'd be able to arrive at Mars Thursday May 11, 2017.

The Earth-Mars Synod after the next one occurs on July 27, 2018. Closest Earth-Mars distance occurs on July 31, 2018 (~57.6 million kilometers) 0.38497 AU = 57,590,742.06 km

The launch in this epoch we must attain hyperbolic excess velocity by Monday October 29, 2018. Boost must start Wednesday March 21, 2018 using the setup described. We arrive at Mars Friday July 12, 2019. This is a few days before the 50th anniversary of the Apollo 11 departure from Earth.

Now the Apollo 11 spacecraft left Earth on July 16, 1969, landed on luna July 20, 1969.

[William Mook]

Let's see, to send ISS to Lagrange point requires a delta vee of 2.95 km/sec. To send ISS to Mars requires a delta vee of 3.45 km/sec. Five Falcon Heavy launches can carry enough solar panels, ion engines and Xenon propellant to impart over 18 km/sec to the ISS over a 2.2 year period. Five years of supplies for 8 people, without any changes at all in protocols, can be orbited in another two Falcon Heavy rockets.

Now even Diemos' surface gravity of 306 microgees is too much for the ISS to land on the moon and take off with its ion engines. Diemos' escape velocity is 5.56 m/sec orbital velocity 3.93 m/sec.

Phobos' is worse with a surface gravity is 581 microgrees. Its escape velocity is 11.39 m/sec (41 kph) Its orbital velocity is 8.05 m/sec (29 kph).

The ion engine thrust is power limited, and we're down to about 350 milliNewtons per engine. So, 160 engines at Mars produce 56 Newtons. The station masses over 600,000 kg at this point - so, we're in the MICROGEE range, and it takes MILLIGEEs to get off the moons.

Now, the ISS has a capability to reboost from time to time, using attached vehicles

http://www.space.com/15155-space-station-boost-watch-engines-fire-video.html

So, these could be added if we wanted to land on these moons and take off.

A MMU is quite capable of 25 m/sec delta vee. So, an orbiting ISS can dispense with the chemical landing and boost on Diemos and Phobos, and merely enter orbit using its ion engine, and astronauts descend to the surface of these moons using MMUs.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=92ZRVlKuc0U

[bob haller]

would you really want to have your life dependent on a aged station?

seals can fail, systems age, things just break down.....

overall a bad idea

[William Mook]

One that's tested and proven? Why not?

>
> seals can fail, systems age, things just break down.....

seals can be replaced, systems are updated, things just get fixed....

> overall a bad idea

overall - a good idea for a quick jaunt to Mars before the 50th anniversary of Apollo 11.

However, if Bigelow can field a system in this time frame, it too could be used.

We can take a portion of the ISS. Or reuse one of the units that are still on the ground in Russia that have yet to fly. We can also make use of any suitable bit of hardware on the ground, providing it can be launched within the next 18 months appropriately outfitted.

ZARYA MODULE - the first ISS module.

Launch: Nov. 20, 1998

Vehicle: Russian Proton rocket

Function: Internal (cargo) and external (fuel) storage

Dimensions:

Length -- 12.56 m (41.2 ft)
Diameter -- 4.11 m (13.5 ft)
Solar array length -- 10.67 m (35.0 ft)
Solar array width -- 3.35 m (11.0 ft)
Mass -- 19,323 kg (42,600 lb)

The 12.6 m long vehicle consists of the 5.3 metric ton service module, a 2.3 metric ton pressurized forward module equipped with a docking port, and holds 5.7 metric tons of cargo.

10 NEXT ion engines with 900 kg of Xenon propellant for each engine, 9,000 kg overall, is capable of boosting this module through a delta vee of 19.11 km/sec. At 5 kg per day, 5.7 metric tons of supplies support one person for 3.17 years. Reducing this to 2.5 kg per day permits increasing crew size to two. Reducing this to 1.9 kg per day permits increasing crew size to three.

Oxygen is breathed producing CO2 in humans.


C + O2 --> CO2 + energy

686 grams per day of oxygen is combined with 257 grams per day of carbon in foods, to produce 943 grams per day of carbon-dioxide.

943 grams of carbon-dioxide is scavenged from the atmosphere using 171.5 grams per day of hydrogen to produce 343 grams per day of methane and 771.5 grams per day of water vapor.

CO2 + 4 H2 --> CH4 + 2 H2O

The 343 grams per day of methane is broken down into 257.25 grams of carbon along with 85.75 grams of hydrogen gas through the application of microwaves. The 771.5 grams per day of water vapor is also broken down via electrolysis into 85.75 grams of hydrogen along with 686 grams per day of oxygen. Thus closing the cycle.

CH4 + energy ---> C + 2 H2 ( 1.61 MJ/day --> 18.7 Watts)
2 H2O + energy ---> O2 + 2 H2 (12.11 MJ/day --> 164.8 Watts)

Total Power: 183.5 Watts per person.

Electrolysis is well understood. Microwave decomposition is not as widely understood. So here's some results from Argonne Labs on the subject to back up the figures;

https://web.anl.gov/PCS/acsfuel/preprint%20archive/Files/49_1_Anaheim_03-04_0973.pdf

Methane has 55.6 kJ/gram whilst carbon has 38.0 kJ/gram and hydrogen 141.3 kJ/gram... so you can see that the systems are efficient but not over unity efficient.

A solar panel and energy storage system maintains air quality in a cabin as long as the sun shines using this system.

A Nautilus BA-330 module is about the same size as the Zarya module and has been proposed by Bigelow Aerospace for a Mars mission;

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/0/01/Bigelow_BA-330_rendering.jpg

Mass 20,000 kg (43,000 lb)
Length 13.7 m (44.9 ft)
Diameter 6.7 m (22.0 ft)
Press volume 330 m3 (11,654 cu ft)

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/0/0a/Bigelow_Aerospace_facilities.jpg/1280px-Bigelow_Aerospace_facilities.jpg

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/1/19/Bigelow_Commercial_Space_Station.jpg

A Dragon V2 capsule masses 4,200 kg and carries 3,310 kg of propellant, payload, crew and supplies.

Crew 7 (max. capacity)
Launch vehicle Falcon 9 v1.1
Volume 10 m3 (350 cu ft) pressurized
14 m3 (490 cu ft) unpressurized
Dry mass 4,200 kg (9,300 lb)
Payload 3,310 kg (7,300 lb).

Endurance 1 week to 2 years
Re-entry at 3.5 Gs
Thrusters 8 x SuperDraco in four pods for launch abort and landing
and 18 in-space maneuvering Draco thrusters.
Propellant NTO/MMH[6]

So, a 20 tonne BA-330 with 7.5 tonne Dragon V2 launched on a 53 tonne capable Falcon Heavy could lift this craft and crew along with another 25.5 of supplies. Taking 3.5 tonnes of consumables in addition to the 2.2 tonnes of consumables on the Dragon V2 (a total of 5.7 tonnes as above) leaves 22.0 tonnes of NEXT ion engines, propellant, solar panels, power conditioning units, and controls.

18 NEXT ion engines at 20kW each is 360 kW overall at 1AU - and 16.2 tonnes of Xenon gas. So, this payload boosts through 18.24 km/sec delta vee in 651 days of operation.

Once in LEO the system requires 140 days of boost to achieve escape velocity expending 3,484.2 kg of Xenon gas in the process. The spacecraft then flies 257 days to reach Mars. It arrives moving more slowly than Mars, and as it falls toward Mars, it gains speed, and attains orbit with very little additional delta vee. Coming in at the right time, angle, position and speed, is enough to capture the spacecraft in Mars orbit. The solar powered ion engines, operating at half the power level and thrust as at Earth, lower the orbit and bring it close to first Diemos, then Phobos. Orbiting these worlds, the crew then use MMUs to navigate from the module to the moons. Diemos orbital velocity is 8 m/sec whilst Phobos orbital velocity is 4 m/sec. The MMU flown by Bruce McCandless back in the 1980s had a total delta vee of 25 m/sec. So, this basic design could easily carry two astronauts to the surface of either moon and back.

RADIATION

Curiosity data suggests that 1.8 millisieverts per day is an expected rate of exposure due to GCR. So, over 257 days the ship will be exposed to 462.6 millisieverts.

Satellites in highly elliptical orbits ranging from 320 km to 32,200 km, have been exposed to 68 millisieverts per day, almost all exposure absorbed totally within the inner Van Allen Belt. This is equivalent to about 3 CAT scans per day.

The inner Van Allen belt is located +/- 15 degrees around the equator and 1.5 to 1.8 Earth radii from the Earth center. That's 3180 to 5200 km altitude.

By launching into an inclined orbit and boosting along this inclined plane, exposure to this radiation source is limited, and even at the low thrust levels, total exposure over an ever widening spiral orbit at an appropriate inclination, at these thrust levels, expected exposure is less than 340 millisiverts from this source during initial boost.

SPE can be high enough to cause acute radiation syndrome, but a variety of radioprotectant drugs exist that can be taken either before or after an event that eliminates risk from this source.

[William Mook]

On Friday, March 27, 2015 at 4:17:59 PM UTC+13, Fred J. McCall wrote:
> bob haller <hal...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> >On Thursday, March 26, 2015 at 11:31:10 AM UTC-4, Fred J. McCall wrote:
> >> bob haller <hal...@aol.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> >
> >> >For HISTORIC reasons ISS at end of life / use should be made safe for long term unmanned storage, attach a solar poweed beacon and put in a high orbit so perhaps it can be visited now and then. high enough so drag isnt a problem.....
> >> >
> >>
> >> Here we go again with the Bobbert 'Spend Billions For History' plan.
> >>
> >> No, Bobbert, it should be safely reentered so it can burn up.
> >>
> >

> >some small ion engines and lots of patience can raise its orbit over time.
> >
>

> <sigh>
>
> Which part of 'this is a stupid idea' is it that you find confusing?
>
> --
> "Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar
> territory."
> --G. Behn

Its not stupid at all. You're stupid for not seeing the brilliance of it. You're ignorant and stupid being such a clueless loud mouthed lout! I will also add, I bet you're damned ugly and have B.O. as well.

[JF Mezei]

On 15-03-26 11:30, Fred J. McCall wrote:

> No, Bobbert, it should be safely reentered so it can burn up.

I disagree.

They should resurrect the 3 Shuttles, and disassemble the station and
bring back every module in the same sequence they were brought up and
then rebuild the station at the Smitsonian or some place else.

:-) :-)

[William Mook]

Arthur Clarke wrote a series of short stories about a teen, Roy Malcolm, wins a trip to the 'Inner Space Station' and has a series of adventures. The book is called "Islands in the Sky". Anyway, they had a space grave yard in Geosynch orbit. There was also a derelict space ship called "The Morning Star" that made the first trip to Venus way back in 1985. The Space Cadets owned it as their personal club house, and had to get it ready to take an ill man from Inner Station to the Space Hospital in a different orbit.

When I read bobbert's ideas for space grave yards, I wonder if he read "Islands in the Sky" when he was young?

In the post-apocolyptic world the ruling oligarchy is preparing for us, they want space travel to be associated with legendary tales, not something real we can touch. So, of course the entire focus of society is to bring things safely down into the ocean leaving our skies pristine and free of any evidence whatever that the legends might indeed be true.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PiVxbS02kp0

[William Mook]

On Friday, March 27, 2015 at 6:24:56 AM UTC-4, Fred J. McCall wrote:

> William Mook <mokme...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >On Friday, March 27, 2015 at 4:17:59 PM UTC+13, Fred J. McCall wrote:
> >> bob haller <hal...@aol.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> >On Thursday, March 26, 2015 at 11:31:10 AM UTC-4, Fred J. McCall wrote:
> >> >> bob haller <hal...@aol.com> wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> >
> >> >> >For HISTORIC reasons ISS at end of life / use should be made safe for long term unmanned storage, attach a solar poweed beacon and put in a high orbit so perhaps it can be visited now and then. high enough so drag isnt a problem.....
> >> >> >
> >> >>
> >> >> Here we go again with the Bobbert 'Spend Billions For History' plan.
> >> >>
> >> >> No, Bobbert, it should be safely reentered so it can burn up.
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> >some small ion engines and lots of patience can raise its orbit over time.
> >> >
> >>
> >> <sigh>
> >>
> >> Which part of 'this is a stupid idea' is it that you find confusing?
> >>
> >

> >Its not stupid at all. You're stupid for not seeing the brilliance of it.
> >
>

> <snork>

That's the response of a monumental fool.

> >
> >You're ignorant and stupid being such a clueless loud mouthed lout!
> >
>

> Ah, there's the "I never insult people" Mookie we all know and loath.

I make exceptions for assholes like you. Since you deserve every misfortune that comes your way.

>
> >
> >I will also add, I bet you're damned ugly and have B.O. as well.
> >
>

> Projecting again, Mookie...

No, you're just repeating the truth I tell about you in hopes that somehow you won't have to deal with your inner demons. Boo! They're still there asshole.

[bob haller]

Fred, if he had his way, indenpence hall in philadephis would of been torn down replaced by townhouses.....

Fred would probably prefered to see the saturn center display scrapped to get a few bucks for the metal, and clear area to build townhouses or something.

fred has no long term view of anything:(

Mini shuttle pilot talking to his passengers.....

Over here we have ISS, considering the 90 years its been in orbit its in supringsly good condition, although all its seals have been replaced.

we will be docking shortly, please wait till we dock and I give the all clear, before leaving your seat.

just a few more minutes and you will be on ISS. thank for flying space adventures

In freds world thingslike this could never occur:(

[William Mook]

The radiation hazard is over stated.

Curiosity shows that 1.8 millisiverts per day is the rate of exposure. Solar burst is treated with radioprotectants either before or after the event.

Intense radiation exposure is through inner Van Allen belt from 1.5 to 1.8 Earth radii - around the equator +/- 15 degrees where 68 millisiverts per day are produced.

Now, we have low-thrust engines that take a while to get through this region. How long? Well, we can compute the time here;

http://bit.ly/1EKtTpa

and using the level of thrust achieved with sufficient number of NEXT ion engines to achieve 18 km/sec over 2.2 years gets us through the inner Van Allen belt in 7 days.

Now, if we start with an equatorial orbit, you can't thrust a solar ion rocket when in Earth's shadow, and we spend all our time in the inner belt at the altitudes where they are most intense - 68 millisieverts per day. A total of 12 days due to non-operation in the shadows gaining 816 millisieverts during transition.

Start however, with a sun synchronous polar orbit that's always in sunlight - and the average exposure is high only two lobes of 30 degrees out of 360 degrees - so we average 11 millisiverts per day of radiation - with peak at 48 microsieverts per minute.

A total of 7 days of boost since the ship is always in sunlight. A total of 77 millisieverts at the lower rate.

So, Van Allen exposure can be nuanced in this way and is quite survivable.

Instead of retrofitting an old ISS module, we can launch a new module.

With a 53 metric ton payload placed on orbit by a SpaceX Falcon Heavy, as a reference, and an 18 km/sec delta vee for our solar ion rocket - we have 16,023 kg of Xenon in a solar ion engine to achieve the delta vee called for.

To undergo 18 km/sec in 2.2 years requires 26.43 microgees of thrust. This needs 230.8 milligrams per second propellant flow rate. A jet power of 288,490 Watts, and solar power load of 360,000 Watts given the efficiency of current engines.

This is 18 of the 20 kW NEXT engines.

Of the 53 ton budget, we subtract out the 16,023 kg of Xenon along with 5,341 kg ion engine & solar panel along with power conditioning unit. This leaves 31,636 kg. 20,000 kg for a Bigelow B330 -

http://bigelowaerospace.com/b330/

Now, at 5 kg of consumables per day the balance 11,636 kg as consumables translate to 2,327 person-days. It gives you 1 person for 6.37 years.

At 0.3 kg of consumables per day, 6 persons for 5 years uses 3,288 kg of consumables leaving 8,348 kg for additional hardware, like a return capsule, (4,200 kg) MMUs, space suits, etc. (4,148 kg)

We can send 6 people to Diemos and Phobos.

If we modify a Dragon V2 (4,200 kg + 1,200 kg consumables) and put two 14,000 kg of hypergolic propellant in two 600 kg composite tanks, we have a vehicle that lands on Mars and takes off twice.

This totals 34,000 kg - and a second solar powered interplanetary booster - which carries the system to Mars - but does not return to Earth (though it is left on Phobos)

We we have with a second launch, a Mars lander, and the ability to land on two spots on Mars, and returning, while also visiting Diemos and Phobos each twice.

2 Falcon Heavy: $170 million
Dragon V2 (return): $ 35 million
Dragon V2 (lander): $ 40 million
6 Spacesuit: $ 72 million
6 MMU: $120 million (6x 140 kg - 25 m/sec each)
2 Propellant: $ 90 million ($24 per kg)
Consumables: $ 18 million
Xenon: $360 million ($1,200 per kg)
18 Solar Next: $ 15 million (360 kW x $41,860/kW)

TOTAL $835 million

A $835 million cost estimate.

All six crew members visit Diemos and Phobos twice using MMU. All six crew members visit Mars once, three in one landing, the other three in a second landing. All return to Earth after parking .

[Jeff Findley]

In article <e1c84ebe-b882-44c5...@googlegroups.com>,
hal...@aol.com says...

Your fantasies aside, it will be de-orbited as space junk to prevent any
issues caused either in orbit (collisions with debris or failures of
pressure vessels would cause more space junk) or issues with an
uncontrolled de-orbit (ala Skylab).

Jeff
--
"the perennial claim that hypersonic airbreathing propulsion would
magically make space launch cheaper is nonsense -- LOX is much cheaper
than advanced airbreathing engines, and so are the tanks to put it in
and the extra thrust to carry it." - Henry Spencer

[Jeff Findley]

In article <leOdncqFTOavHInI...@earthlink.com>,
moo...@deletethisgreenms.com says...

>
> "Fred J. McCall" wrote in message
> news:qe98hat049cdm5di0...@4ax.com...
> >
> >bob haller <hal...@aol.com> wrote:
> >
> >>
> >>For HISTORIC reasons ISS at end of life / use should be made safe for long
> >>term unmanned storage, attach a solar poweed beacon and put in a high
> >>orbit so perhaps it can be visited now and then. high enough so drag isnt
> >>a problem.....
> >>
> >
> >Here we go again with the Bobbert 'Spend Billions For History' plan.
> >
> >No, Bobbert, it should be safely reentered so it can burn up.
>
> Not to really side with Bob, but this is hardly billions. I'd guess a large
> enough booster could be launched on a Falcon Heavy or even Falcon.

The delta-V to put it into an orbit that would be stable for hundreds or
thousands of years will almost certainly be more than that needed to
de-orbit the thing. You can safely deorbit with a few Progress vehicles
(or similar), but going to a high "storage" orbit is harder.

You'd need an actual orbital vehicle with *a lot* of delta-V capability
to dock with ISS. Something along the lines of a *heavily* modified
Cygnus or Dragon paired (mated or docked) with a Falcon Heavy upper
stage might be able to do something like this, but it's not going to be
"off the shelf" and will cost far more than the launch to design, test,
build, and fly.

[Jeff Findley]

In article <30927eb3-e025-4fb9...@googlegroups.com>,
mokme...@gmail.com says...

>
> Let's see, to send ISS to Lagrange point requires a delta vee of
> 2.95 km/sec. To send ISS to Mars requires a delta vee of 3.45
> km/sec. Five Falcon Heavy launches can carry enough solar panels,
> ion engines and Xenon propellant to impart over 18 km/sec to the
> ISS over a 2.2 year period. Five years of supplies for 8 people,
> without any changes at all in protocols, can be orbited in another
> two Falcon Heavy rockets.

The van-Allen radiation belts would fry your electronics (so this is
utter fantasy), but we'll ignore that annoying "problem" for the time
being...

That's a lot of f-ing xenon! Now tell us how much *money* all of that
xenon will cost and how many years it will take to procure. You'll see
that this is utter fantasy when you take cost into consideration.

[Greg (Strider) Moore]

"Jeff Findley" wrote in message
news:MPG.2f806c835...@news.eternal-september.org...

I don't necessarily disagree. Simply pointing out that I don't think it's
quite as costly as Fred seems to think.

That said, I also don't think it's going to happen.

And it doesn't have to be stable for hundreds of years, just decades.
(during which time ideally we get even CHEAPER access to orbit.)

I do think the longer ISS is in use, the higher the odds that it is
preserved. That said, even double the odds means going from probably 1:1000
to 2:1000 :-)
(Which is still about 100,000,000,000x the odds of Mook's plan.)
>Jeff

[William Mook]

On Sunday, March 29, 2015 at 12:22:18 AM UTC+13, Fred J. McCall wrote:

> William Mook <mokme...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >
> >The radiation hazard is over stated.
> >
>

> In other words, the facts are against you so ignore the facts.
>
> <snip>

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

I quoted the facts to show that the concerns about radiation are overwrought. You elided those facts, which is typical for you.

Curiosity was exposed to 1.8 millisieverts per day during its cruise to Mars, and an ion engine boost from LEO to a Hohmann transfer orbit to Mars will spend only 7 days in the inner van allen belt, which will contribute only 11 millisieverts per day to a sun synchronous polar orbital plane boost. Overall, less than 3000 millisieverts for the entire mission.

[Greg (Strider) Moore]

"Fred J. McCall" wrote in message

news:0bmihap0thdlstshg...@4ax.com...

>
>William Mook <mokme...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>On Sunday, March 29, 2015 at 12:22:18 AM UTC+13, Fred J. McCall wrote:
>>> William Mook <mokme...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> >
>>> >The radiation hazard is over stated.
>>> >
>>>
>>> In other words, the facts are against you so ignore the facts.
>>>
>>> <snip>
>>>
>>

>>I quoted the facts to show that the concerns about radiation are
>>overwrought. You elided those facts, which is typical for you.
>>
>

>You really want to discuss them? Fine.

>
>>
>>Curiosity was exposed to 1.8 millisieverts per day during its cruise to
>>Mars, and an ion engine boost from LEO to a Hohmann transfer orbit to Mars
>>will spend only 7 days in the inner van allen belt, which will contribute
>>only 11 millisieverts per day to a sun synchronous polar orbital plane
>>boost. Overall, less than 3000 millisieverts for the entire mission.
>>
>

>So over the course of your mission you get around 750 YEARS worth of
>exposure for someone at sea level. And that's just the external
>exposure. If you live in Denver your typical annual external exposure
>is around 0.5 mSv. Live at a lower altitude and it's much lower.
>
>Mookie waves his hands and declares "no problem", even though the
>exposure he's waving away is 20x the maximum allowable exposure for
>nuclear workers.

But Fred, don't you see, Mr. Mook has these magical drugs that make that all
go away!

[William Mook]

On Monday, March 30, 2015 at 10:23:58 AM UTC-4, Fred J. McCall wrote:
> William Mook <mokme...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >On Sunday, March 29, 2015 at 12:22:18 AM UTC+13, Fred J. McCall wrote:
> >> William Mook <mokme...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> >
> >> >The radiation hazard is over stated.
> >> >
> >>
> >> In other words, the facts are against you so ignore the facts.
> >>
> >> <snip>
> >>
> >

> >I quoted the facts to show that the concerns about radiation are overwrought. You elided those facts, which is typical for you.
> >
>

> You really want to discuss them? Fine.
>
> >

> >Curiosity was exposed to 1.8 millisieverts per day during its cruise to Mars, and an ion engine boost from LEO to a Hohmann transfer orbit to Mars will spend only 7 days in the inner van allen belt, which will contribute only 11 millisieverts per day to a sun synchronous polar orbital plane boost. Overall, less than 3000 millisieverts for the entire mission.
> >
>

> So over the course of your mission you get around 750 YEARS worth of
> exposure for someone at sea level.

http://www.epa.gov/radiation/understand/perspective.html

3000 millisiverts divided by 6.2 millisieverts is 484 years.

Now, for someone who wants to learn to swim they need a reasonably deep pool. Typical home pool holds 330,000 litres. A person generally consumes about 3 litres of beverages a day. So, to learn to swim a person must get wet with enough water to supply his drinking needs for 301 years! Certainly, a person in this much water runs risk of death through drowning!

By this course of reasoning one may argue that in order to learn to swim safely, we must make sure the swimmer doesn't get wet!

Asking that our interplanetary explorers learn to navigate interplanetary space without getting exposed to potentially hazardous levels of radiation is akin to demanding a swimmer learn to swim without getting wet.

> And that's just the external
> exposure. If you live in Denver your typical annual external exposure
> is around 0.5 mSv. Live at a lower altitude and it's much lower.

Your numbers don't agree with US EPA's figures. Whom are we to believe? I go with the EPA. Most others would too.

Fact is, the exposure for the explorers is equivalent to about one GI procedure per week for the weeks of the journey, and about one GI procedure every 36 hours for the 7 days you're in the Van Allen belt.

>
> Mookie waves his hands and declares "no problem",

I do! For those prepared to take the risk, there is no problem. If you insist radiation is a show stopper you have to explain precisely why.

The question we have to ask can someone reasonably survive the trip? The answer is, YES! There is even a series of tests that can be done prior to flight to determine one's sensitivity to high radiation doses they're likely to encounter.

> even though the
> exposure he's waving away is 20x the maximum allowable exposure for
> nuclear workers.

And 3x the current maximum allowed for astronauts. And if the speed limit near a school zone is 25 mph, and the speed limit is 55 mph on the open highway, can I safely drive my car 70 mph on a back road in on the Gold Coast in Australia?

Again, you are confabulating different aspects into a clearly confused conclusion.

3,000 microsieverts over as many years is survivable. That's the point. 95% of the people exposed at this rate won't even feel ill. We can survey the one's that will feel ill, and exclude them at this stage.

What about long-term health effects? Well, if we send explorers that are beyond their child bearing years, effect on offspring is eliminated. What about long-term cancer? Robert Zubrin has pointed out if we send smokers on the trip to Mars and prohibit smoking during their trip, their likelihood of cancer actually decreases because their smoking was interrupted.

> --
> "Insisting on perfect safety is for people who don't have the balls to
> live in the real world."
> -- Mary Shafer, NASA Dryden

This sig expresses precisely my point and flies in the face of you confused confabulations.

Interesting that Mary talks about not having balls... lol. Still, I have no doubt she has rhetorical balls, because she's right.

We don't need perfect safety. We require, if we wish to use the ISS, or BA-330, using solar powered ion boost, to visit the moons of Mars, a clear understanding of the risks and how to manage them in ways that assure successful completion of the mission.

[William Mook]

Obviously Greg you know nothing about radioprotectants. Many are in wide use right now since people routinely get doses of radiation of up to 80,000 millisieverts PER DOSE to treat cancers! 80,000 millisieverts is 27x the 3,000 millisievert dosage of the MULTI-YEAR MISSION I've described!

Demanding that astronauts exploring Mars not be exposed to any more radiation than if they stayed at home is like demanding a swimmer not get exposed to any more water than the would at home before you let them in the water. The demand is a foolish one. You avoid drowning by learning to swim. You avoid radiation death by learning how to manage the environment to assure survival.

[William Mook]

On Saturday, March 28, 2015 at 8:39:10 AM UTC-4, Jeff Findley wrote:
> In article <e1c84ebe-b882-44c5...@googlegroups.com>,
> hal...@aol.com says...
> >
> > For HISTORIC reasons ISS at end of life / use should be made safe
> > for long term unmanned storage, attach a solar poweed beacon and
> > put in a high orbit so perhaps it can be visited now and then.
> > high enough so drag isnt a problem.....
>
> Your fantasies aside,

A fantasy is something that cannot happen in principal. What I describe is factual. A program costing less than 8% of what has been spent thus far could send 8 people to Mars and back, and they'd explore the two moons of mars in the process. A program costing less than 16% of what has been spent thus far, could send 8 people to Mars and back, as before, and allow two groups to land at two separate spots on the Martian surface.

> it will be de-orbited as space junk to prevent any
> issues caused either in orbit (collisions with debris or failures of
> pressure vessels would cause more space junk) or issues with an
> uncontrolled de-orbit (ala Skylab).

Perhaps you're right. The lack of imagination of governments is the stuff of legend. Just as the fleet that sailed from China to Europe in 1434 and ignited the Renaissance was later sunk by government bureaucrats trying to pinch pennies. It was a step toward the demise of China as a great power, and it is another in a series of continuing steps of the current system of nation states demise.

[bob haller]

radiation exposure is a combination of exposure level and time...

to go to mars and beyond we need a fast transit system

[bob haller]

On Tuesday, March 31, 2015 at 10:34:45 PM UTC-4, Fred J. McCall wrote:

> bob haller <hal...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> >radiation exposure is a combination of exposure level and time...
> >
> >to go to mars and beyond we need a fast transit system
>

> No. What you need is an intelligently designed mission using hardware
> designed for the purpose.

cutting travel time reduces radiation exposure, reduces the chances of mechanical breakdown, reduces possible bad health effects from long travel time..... saves money on consumables, and may minimize mental issues with being so far from earth

hey fred. please list advantages of long travel times. are there any?

[Jeff Findley]

In article <7655025c-325d-43eb...@googlegroups.com>,
mokme...@gmail.com says...

>
> On Saturday, March 28, 2015 at 8:39:10 AM UTC-4, Jeff Findley wrote:
> > In article <e1c84ebe-b882-44c5...@googlegroups.com>,
> > hal...@aol.com says...
> > >
> > > For HISTORIC reasons ISS at end of life / use should be made safe
> > > for long term unmanned storage, attach a solar poweed beacon and
> > > put in a high orbit so perhaps it can be visited now and then.
> > > high enough so drag isnt a problem.....
> >
> > Your fantasies aside,
>
> A fantasy is something that cannot happen in principal. What I describe is factual.

Only in a world where you ignore costs and politics. Certainly ISS
could be moved well beyond LEO, but that doesn't mean it will happen.
So, I suppose fantasy was inappropriate. More like bad sci-fi. Have
you considered becoming a script writer for SyFy?

> > it will be de-orbited as space junk to prevent any
> > issues caused either in orbit (collisions with debris or failures of
> > pressure vessels would cause more space junk) or issues with an
> > uncontrolled de-orbit (ala Skylab).
>
> Perhaps you're right. The lack of imagination of governments is
> the stuff of legend.

Imagination isn't the problem. Dollars are. There is no sane
destination for ISS to travel to at its *end of life* where it could do
anything useful.

[bob haller]

On Wednesday, April 1, 2015 at 9:13:57 AM UTC-4, Fred J. McCall wrote:
> bob haller <hal...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> >On Tuesday, March 31, 2015 at 10:34:45 PM UTC-4, Fred J. McCall wrote:
> >> bob haller <hal...@aol.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> >radiation exposure is a combination of exposure level and time...
> >> >
> >> >to go to mars and beyond we need a fast transit system
> >>
> >> No. What you need is an intelligently designed mission using hardware
> >> designed for the purpose.
> >
> >cutting travel time reduces radiation exposure, reduces the chances of mechanical breakdown, reduces possible bad health effects from long travel time..... saves money on consumables, and may minimize mental issues with being so far from earth
> >
>

> And not going is a way to reduce those things even further, but it's a
> silly approach to the problem, too.

>
> >
> >hey fred. please list advantages of long travel times. are there any?
> >
>

> The biggest advantage is that they're actually possible, while your
> favoured approach relies on technology we haven't got. That, of
> course, is why it's your favoured approach; if we take it people don't
> go.
>
> --
> "False words are not only evil in themselves, but they infect the
> soul with evil."
> -- Socrates


NERVA booster for mars transit had been tested but not in orbit. they cut the funding.

on a long trip to mars just the consumables and spare parts will be larger than the actual mission hardware.

just think of food water etc for a crew of 7 for 3 or 4 years......

[William Mook]

> Wrong.

My figures are accurate. Your conclusions, not so much.

Whom are we to believe? The National Cancer Institute that says 80,000 millisieverts received during certain melanoma treatments is routine or you? Whom are we to believe? NASA who has reported the radiation levels surrounding Earth and existant in interplanetary space, or you? I would say we should believe NCI and NASA - and when we do we find that a single treatment for melanoma is 27x the expected dose of a multi-year mission.

>
> >
> >Demanding that astronauts exploring Mars not be exposed to any more radiation than if they stayed at home is like demanding a swimmer not get exposed to any more water than the would at home before you let them in the water. The demand is a foolish one. You avoid drowning by learning to swim. You avoid radiation death by learning how to manage the environment to assure survival.
> >
>

> Making shit up

Is something you do all the time, and then blame others. This is evidence of a psychological disease on your part.

> and pretending people have said it

So, no you're pretending that the National Cancer Institute doesn't list 80,000 millisieverts as the dosage of certain melanoma treatments, or that NASA doesn't list the GCR for Curiosity at 1.8 millisieverts per day. These things are easily looked up and verified.

In the face of this ACCURATE and INCONTROVERTIBLE data you say what? haha - that shit is being made up? Yeah, BY YOU! You sorry ass.

> is like claiming to
> be an expert on a subject while knowing nothing about it.

<yawn> You have admitted that you are a support programmer with delusions of grandeur. I have managed Fortune 500 design teams for major aerospace contractors which resulted in patents assigned to me, I've been invited to the White House and Senate and Pentagon to discuss space and energy issues at the highest levels. Provide links confirming such activities;

https://www.scribd.com/doc/20024019/White-Paper-to-Mok-FINAL-1
https://www.scribd.com/doc/21832226/Mook-Patent-Solar-Energy-Spectral-Cooling
https://www.scribd.com/doc/24911642/Report-to-OSTP-EOP-Dec-2004
https://www.scribd.com/doc/130453929/Power-Satellite

while you winge about it.

lol.

> It is, in
> short, Mookie.

and call names you think are demeaning...

http://www.mokenergy.com/index.php/about/mok_history/


>
> --
> "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

Funny sig from someone who makes nothing but errors... lol.

[William Mook]

On Wednesday, April 1, 2015 at 3:29:48 PM UTC+13, Fred J. McCall wrote:
> William Mook <mokme...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >On Monday, March 30, 2015 at 10:23:58 AM UTC-4, Fred J. McCall wrote:
> >> William Mook <mokme...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> >On Sunday, March 29, 2015 at 12:22:18 AM UTC+13, Fred J. McCall wrote:
> >> >> William Mook <mokme...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> >
> >> >> >The radiation hazard is over stated.
> >> >> >
> >> >>
> >> >> In other words, the facts are against you so ignore the facts.
> >> >>
> >> >> <snip>
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> >I quoted the facts to show that the concerns about radiation are overwrought. You elided those facts, which is typical for you.
> >> >
> >>
> >> You really want to discuss them? Fine.
> >>
> >> >
> >> >Curiosity was exposed to 1.8 millisieverts per day during its cruise to Mars, and an ion engine boost from LEO to a Hohmann transfer orbit to Mars will spend only 7 days in the inner van allen belt, which will contribute only 11 millisieverts per day to a sun synchronous polar orbital plane boost. Overall, less than 3000 millisieverts for the entire mission.
> >> >
> >>
> >> So over the course of your mission you get around 750 YEARS worth of
> >> exposure for someone at sea level.
> >
> >http://www.epa.gov/radiation/understand/perspective.html
> >
> >3000 millisiverts divided by 6.2 millisieverts is 484 years.
> >
>

> Now remove the half that comes from radiation treatments, X-rays, etc

Why?

> and you're talking 900 years of exposure.

If you remove the exposure from radon gas you can extend it even further. Of course that number means no more than the number you come up with. The ACTUAL exposure is reported by the EPA. The exposure from X-rays and such are important details. They show that people routinely receive radiation treatments far in excess of a mission to Mars and that radioprotectants are well advanced.

> >
> >Now, for someone who wants to learn to swim they need a reasonably deep pool. Typical home pool holds 330,000 litres. A person generally consumes about 3 litres of beverages a day. So, to learn to swim a person must get wet with enough water to supply his drinking needs for 301 years! Certainly, a person in this much water runs risk of death through drowning!
> >
> >By this course of reasoning one may argue that in order to learn to swim safely, we must make sure the swimmer doesn't get wet!
> >
>

> I'm sorry, but that is the stupidest failure of an analogy I've ever
> seen.

Nonsense.

>
> >
> >Asking that our interplanetary explorers learn to navigate interplanetary space without getting exposed to potentially hazardous levels of radiation is akin to demanding a swimmer learn to swim without getting wet.
> >
>

> But just a bit ago you were claiming the hazards were overstated.

They are.

> Now
> you're accepting that they aren't but we 'have to risk it' for some
> reason.

No I didn't say that at all. I said that EXPOSURE to radiation is certain. Obviously you misread that to mean RISK somehow. tsk tsk.

>
> >> And that's just the external
> >> exposure. If you live in Denver your typical annual external exposure
> >> is around 0.5 mSv. Live at a lower altitude and it's much lower.
> >
> >Your numbers don't agree with US EPA's figures. Whom are we to believe? I go with the EPA. Most others would too.
> >
>

> My numbers agree fine.

No they don't.

> I assumed that young healthy astronauts
> wouldn't be getting x-ray tomographies or be treated by nuclear
> medicine.

You assumed that why? Because you believed that tomographies and nuclear medicine bear unacceptable risks! Why do you believe that? Because you buy into the overstated risks of these exposures.

There is a risk in anything one does. Last year there were 113.1 billion automobile trips in the USA which resulted in 5.4 million accidents killing 30,200 drivers and 33,000 pedestrians and injuring another 2,239,000 persons.

Over the 30 year life of the space shuttle there were 135 launches into space carrying 355 astronauts. 14 astronauts died in two accidents and another 12 non-astronauts died and another 33 injured in accidents surrounding the shuttle.

We all know about the Columbia and Challenger. Less know are the many who died on the ground. Here are a few taken from a comprehensive list of accidents;

1981-03-19 Cape Canaveral, USA 3 STS-1 Anoxia due to nitrogen atmosphere in the aft engine compartment of Columbia during preparations for STS-1. Five workers were involved in the incident and three died. John Bjornstad died at the scene. Forrest Cole and Nick Mullon died later from injuries sustained in the incident.

1981-05-05 Cape Canaveral, USA 1 STS-2 Construction worker Anthony E. Hill, 22, fell more than 30 meters to his death from the Kennedy Space Center Launch Complex 39B service structure. Workers were preparing LC-39B for a planned September 1981 launch of the Space Shuttle Columbia.

1985-12-04 Vandenberg AFB, USA 1 Space Shuttle Carl Reich, 49, of Lompoc, CA, an iron worker who was employed by Hensel Phelps Construction of Greeley, CO, fell 18 stories to his death from the mobile service structure of the SLC-6 Space Shuttle launch complex. Mr. Reich was bolting a platform onto the structure. Workers were putting finishing touches on the Vandenberg AFB Space Shuttle launch complex.

1988-05-04 Henderson, NV USA 2 Two workers died in the PEPCON disaster, the explosion of a factory that produced ammonium perchlorate for the solid rocket boosters of the Space Shuttle and other launchers.


> Those (nuclear medicine) make up HALF of your 'average' dose.

That is right. When you parse the data and realize that only a small fraction of people receive MASSIVE doses of radiation, and the survival of that, you see that the exposure of radiation due to interplanetary travel is quite acceptable
risk.

Our experience in traveling to LEO 7.3% of the number of people transported will die either on the ground or in space.

Meanwhile, the levels of radiation during the trip is unlikely to cause more than 5% of the people to even become nauseated. This is why any reasonable person says the risks due to radiation are over-stated.

>
> >
> >Fact is, the exposure for the explorers is equivalent to about one GI procedure per week for the weeks of the journey, and about one GI procedure every 36 hours for the 7 days you're in the Van Allen belt.
> >
>

> The typical nuclear medicine exposure is around 0.14mSv. By your
> figures you are assuming your voyage takes around 20,000 weeks. That
> seems just a tad long.

Nonsense.

>
> >
> >>
> >> Mookie waves his hands and declares "no problem",
> >>
> >
> >I do! For those prepared to take the risk, there is no problem. If you insist radiation is a show stopper you have to explain precisely why.
> >
>

> If you claim it's not a risk (no problem) YOU have to explain
> precisely why.

I just did (again) above. Exposures to radiation that cause only 5% of those exposed to become nauseous and fewer than 0.5% to run the risk of long term illness, is as nothing compared to 7.3% who die getting in a big rocket and lighting it on fire just to get into orbit.

> So far your position seems to amount to "if they die,
> they die".

My position is that a number of people equal to 7.3% of the astronauts who flew on the Shuttle died during the Shuttle program. The radiation levels measured by NASA when examined in light of the National Cancer Institute experience with massive radiation doses, indicates that fewer than 5.0% of the astronauts exposed to this level of radiation will report nausea, and fewer than 0.5% will have long term health issues.

While these figures are unacceptable in most industries, they are as nothing compared to the risks already faced by astronauts just getting into orbit. When you add the accidents not related to space flights, like training accidents, T-38 crashes and the like, the figure doubles to nearly 15%!!

> >
> >The question we have to ask can someone reasonably survive the trip? The answer is, YES! There is even a series of tests that can be done prior to flight to determine one's sensitivity to high radiation doses they're likely to encounter.
> >
>

> You should go live at Chernobyl.

If Chernobyl had a path to the surface of Mars, it would be tempting.

> >
> >> even though the
> >> exposure he's waving away is 20x the maximum allowable exposure for
> >> nuclear workers.
> >
> >And 3x the current maximum allowed for astronauts. And if the speed limit near a school zone is 25 mph, and the speed limit is 55 mph on the open highway, can I safely drive my car 70 mph on a back road in on the Gold Coast in Australia?
> >
> >Again, you are confabulating different aspects into a clearly confused conclusion.
> >
>

> Wow, you're the master of moronic parallels.

<shrug> You're the one full of nonsense.

> >
> >3,000 microsieverts over as many years is survivable. That's the point. 95% of the people exposed at this rate won't even feel ill. We can survey the one's that will feel ill, and exclude them at this stage.
> >
>

> So your view is that if you don't get immediate knockdown it's 'no
> problem'?

That's right given the fact that 7.3% of the astronauts will die who just make it to orbit, and 15% of the astronauts who want to go to orbit will die either in flight, in preparation, or in training.

We call them heroes for this reason.

> >
> >What about long-term health effects? Well, if we send explorers that are beyond their child bearing years, effect on offspring is eliminated. What about long-term cancer? Robert Zubrin has pointed out if we send smokers on the trip to Mars and prohibit smoking during their trip, their likelihood of cancer actually decreases because their smoking was interrupted.
> >
>

> If Zubrin said such a thing, Zubrin is a little stupid.

I would say Zubrin is smart. You, not so much.

> You're a lot
> stupid.

Not so much.

https://www.scribd.com/doc/37046560/MokPhI-Part-2-Draft01

> >> --
> >> "Insisting on perfect safety is for people who don't have the balls to
> >> live in the real world."
> >> -- Mary Shafer, NASA Dryden
> >
> >This sig expresses precisely my point and flies in the face of you confused confabulations.
> >
>

> Still stupidly commenting on .sigs.

I'm smartly commenting on sigs. Look, you change these sigs regularly. You do so because they appeal to you following saying something derisive and stupid. So, when these change, they're of interest. Your choice based on your feelings telegraph subconsciously what's going on inside that crazy head of yours. Sometimes its worth a comment.

> Wow, have your lobotomy scars
> healed yet?

Projecting again? lol. Look, why have a sig if you bitch about somebody reading it?

> >
> >Interesting that Mary talks about not having balls... lol. Still, I have no doubt she has rhetorical balls, because she's right.
> >
> >We don't need perfect safety. We require, if we wish to use the ISS, or BA-330, using solar powered ion boost, to visit the moons of Mars, a clear understanding of the risks and how to manage them in ways that assure successful completion of the mission.
> >
>

> But we certainly don't need your sort of ignorance of risk.

I'm not ignoring risk, I'm properly accounting for it and contrasting it with risks already underway.

> --
> "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

You are making all sorts of errors, and ignorant to boot! lol.

[William Mook]

A fusion reaction of Lithium-6 and Deuterium, produces a plasma exhaust traveling at 22,300 km/sec.

Now Mars is at Right Ascension 1h55m57.87s and Declination 11d44m41.9s at the present moment, and 3.541e11 meters away again at the present moment.

Relative to my present location on the Earth's surface that's 30d42m13s altitude and 317d49m12s azimuth. Mars will rise at my location at 9:10 AM NZDT April 3 2015 and set 8:04 PM NZDT later that evening.

Okay, now if I had a fusion powered rocket I could boost to Mars at 1 gee until I reached half way there, and then continue to boost until I arrived. I would boost at 2 gee on take off, and continually adjust my acceleration as I moved further from Earth so that I maintained a 1 gee geometric acceleration relative to Earth.

I would reach half way point in 52 hours 46 minutes 34.6 seconds - at which time I will have achieved 1,863.2 km/sec speed. I arrive at Mars 105 hours 33 minutes and 9.2 seconds after departing Earth. Total delta vee is 3,726.4 km/sec. In addition I add 11.2 km/sec escape velocity from Earth and 5.2 km/sec escape velocity from Mars. That's a total of 3,742.8 km/sec.

Now, to get back I reverse the procedure, which doubles the total delta vee again to a total of 7,485.6 km/sec.

Just for good measure, let's design our ship to undergo a 10,000 km/sec delta vee.

So, with a 22,300 km/sec exhaust speed we can see that we need

u = 1 - 1/exp(10,000/22,300) = 36.2%

propellant fraction.

So, with a 70,000 kg take off weight we require 25,340 kg of lithium-6 deuteride propellant. This is a material that masses 820 kg per cubic meter. A 30,900 litre tank holds it.

Here's the A319-100
http://www.airbus.com/aircraftfamilies/passengeraircraft/a320family/a319/

Seats:................. 150
Length:................ 33.84 m
Height:................ 12.14 m
Wing span:............. 34.10 m
Maximum take-off weight:70,000 kg
Maximum landing weight: 61,000 kg
Weight empty........... 35,400 kg
Tank capacity:......... 18,730

A 3.1 m long tank built into 3.6 m diameter fuselage, occupies 30.9 cubic meters.

A less conventional design consists of four spherical tanks, each 2.47 m in diameter holding MEMS micro-nukes, that are detonated across a magnetic surface outside the sphere to produce controlled thrust in each sphere. These form a quadrotor like 'box' around an 8 floor flight deck - creating a disk shaped craft that carries 40 people and 22 crew in ship like cabins.

The point is that over the 4.375 days of the trip total exposure is 7.3 millisieverts. Allowing 9 days for transit and another 12 days on planet, for a total of 21 days - total exposure is quite reasonable.

The size of the ship is something like this.

http://www.boatbookings.com/yacht_search/yacht_view.php?pid=7391

The layout is something like this (though on a slightly larger scale)

http://fc03.deviantart.net/fs71/f/2011/195/f/3/wip___captain__s_yacht_by_richmerk-d3qg3d3.jpg

[William Mook]

Flying to Mars with 40 people once per month, who each pay $2.5 million for the privilege earns $100 million per month in gross sales. There are additional sales as well, for various services and equipment. $1 billion per year is earned from 480 people in 20 cabins on 12 trips. With a 20 year life-span the ship could cost as much at $9.8 billion and still pay an 8% annual return to investors.

There are 88,200 people with more than $100 million cash. 1/2% of these per year would fill the demand for these ships. A market penetration of 8% - which is typical - would translate to a demand for 16 such ships.

Fly to Mars, reconnoiter Diemos and Phobos, visit the moon on the way back. This would be a great trip!

http://img.thesun.co.uk/aidemitlum/archive/00860/Mars-Monolith_682_860589a.jpg

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2010/01/13/article-1242794-07D780F5000005DC-702_634x477.jpg

[William Mook]

Micro nukes built into nanobot robot swarms, that produce powerful magnetic fields as they detonate which squirt the plasma in the desired direction produce controlled thrust across the surface of a sphere that contains the material.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uL6e3co4Qqc

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o3IhGZY0TCE

http://www.pppl.gov/news/2015/03/pppl-and-general-atomics-scientists-make-breakthrough-understanding-how-control-intense

Operating at two gees, the four thrusters must 343.3 kN each (36 metric tons force). With an exhaust speed of 22,300 km/sec this implies a mass flow rate of 15.4 grams per second per unit. This is 77 milligram units at a rate of 200 per second. Reducing thrust to one gee reduces detonation rate to 100 per second. Each unit is a hexagon that is 1.1 mm thick in diameter and 12.0 mm. They are packed onto a magnetic plate, spaced 2.3 mm from their neighbours inside a 2.4 m diameter spherical tank.

People are welcomed aboard, and shown throughout the ship and become aware of procedures. They then blast into Earth orbit, where they experience zero gee, and the Earth from space, and take a space walk.

The ship then blasts to the moon. In three hours 17 minutes and 25 seconds it arrives at the moon and touches down. People explore the lunar surface and familiarize themselves with the ship and their spacesuit, and explore old lunar sites.

The ship then blasts off for Mars. They retire for the first evening in space. Four days later the ship arrives at Mars. A landing is first made at Diemos. Another landing at Phobos. Finally a landing is made on Mars. A different spot is visited every two days. Six different spots of interest. The ship then blasts off for Earth. Four days later, the ship arrives at Earth.

[bob haller]

The latest proposal is to keep ISS going till 2024. the station was NOT designed to live that long.

NASA will try to keep it operating to protect nasa jobs till a accident takes it out........

[William Mook]

Using a series of tiny fusion detonations that produce their own powerful directing magnetic fields rockets with 22,300 km/sec exhaust velocities are built.

Using this technique constant thrust spacecraft are built. Accelerating at one gee to Mars takes 4 days at the moment. As it's distance changes so does transit time.

No facilities exist on Mars at first so any traveller is constrained to live aboard ship.

This favors a yacht type accommodation

Spending 8 days in transit means for highest perceived value you must spend at least 12 days at location.

Untrained passengers find high gee for extended times uncomfortable and unhealthy.

This constrains the rate of use.
This will change going forward.

[William Mook]

People who do not trouble themselves to read the current literature are ignorant of what is possible and consider quite simple solutions to be fantasy.

Wilowski has reported at the Institute of Plasma Physics in Poland that self induced magnetic fields of expanding plasmas can be made to constrain the angle at which they emerge from a superheated plasma. This process is observed in the solar atmosphere as well as in the lab.

Tiny structured particles of LiD using CVD at the micro scale have also been made to undergo complete and rapid microfusion using neutron beams.

Clearly further structuring and detonation in an appropriately shaped external field achieves low cost lightweight high thrust fusion propulsion