Jan,

Seems you're "chunking down" from the big frame to the small initial steps and
construction steps, while I've been thinking more of "chunking up" from the
small stuff to whatever the big frame may end up looking like, which in my
opinion is still not at all sure, and shouldn't be either. (Sorry, chunking up
and chunking down are notions coming from NLP, ie. neuro-linguistic
programming).

Well, the two ways of looking at it aren't mutually exclusive, but rather
synergetic.

So from a chunking up mind frame I'd be trying to figure out:
A single hex-frame is already a construction in its own right, yes? How does it
get constructed? And once it's constructed, how does the next frame along get
constructed?

This is how I was visualizing the construction of the very first hex-frame:
1. All the tubes and elements of a first ring come up in a container that gets
unpacked by the grapplers of the first mini-tug.
2. On one of the next launches a robonaut is delivered that then latches itself
onto the ring and waits for further elements to arrive.
3. The robonaut then - hand-over-handing all over the place - sticks together
further tubes and joints and strings and tenses cables to finish the first
hex-frame.
4. From here on out all further expansion of the hex-frame grid is done by
robonauts that cling to the already existing frame and stick further elements
into it, elements being single tubes and joints unpacked from crates having been
launched up.

Jan, you seem to think an alternative to robonauts is the tug that will evolve
into an EVA pod. Okay, so what are the pros and cons of robonaut versus tug as
construction workers (both teleoperated)?

Ueli

Jan,

I have a huge range of points going off in all directions, and have some trouble
decididing where to take hold and work it out. It's kind of fascinating to
reallize how complex getting the very first structures into space turns out to
be.

So bear with me if I'm not too consistent just yet with my comments. But I'll
try to split my comments into various threads for easier tracking.

So, this one on hoppers:

Ah well, yes I see your point about hoppers themselves actually being able to
move  hex-frames about. Interesting.

However:
1. What's the use of a full-sized navigating hopper in LEO in the early stages
of construction? What we need is water up there for reaction mass for the tugs
to haul in further equipment and further water. Putting a hopper up there is
going to bring water, sure, and when it's empty.....  - we got an empty hopper
that needs to get out of the way and make place for a next one, and then isn't
useful for anything until we can send it off to an asteorid for tanking up. And
that will take time. So before we're ready to go get semiprocessed materials
from asteroids (ie. water or grit and slush, etc. we discussed when we figured
out the first miner), it doesn't make sense to put a navigationally capable
hopper out there. It makes much more sense to make that a simple inert can.

2. Would a hopper have the micronavigational capabilities for fine-tuning
approaches when trying to link up hex-frames? I doubt it.

3. How does a hex-frame get built in orbit? Or does it go out there fully
integrated? That wouldn't make sense to me.

Ueli


--- In NEAmines@yahoogroups.com, EOS Mars Program <eos.mars.program@...> wrote:
>
> 
>
> Ueli,
>
> I have been running over the various assembly scenarios for the
> LEOdock in my mind, as I was considering whether to produce
> renderings for an animation sequence of the modules build-up over
> time, from first launch elements onwards to demonstrate its stages.
>
> "Actually, I believe assembling further craft will become much more
> important initially than assembly for expanding the grid structure. I
> mean: Early on there need to be grapplers and twiddlers that can
> stick together the components that will make up the bigger tugs.
>
> Hmmm....... or save a lot of grief by launching a tug all in one for
> immediate use on Ariane et al. Thinking of the SeaBees here, as they
> roll their bulldozers off the landing craft into the surf of a
> Pacific island and immediately start levelling runways."
>
> What I failed to mention previously, was why the hoppers are an
> important part of the primary installation. If you recall, hoppers
> were right at the beginning considered to have some autonomous
> navigation capabilities in order to vacate the LEOminer and return
> themselves to dock with a freighter (later aided by a local tug to
> speed things up and catch any random failures when larger numbers
> were shipped to NEAs).
>
> Since the hoppers dock themselves to the hex frames, it is then
> implicit that they can also manipulate the empty frame itself using
> their thrusters, so can guide the hexes to mutual latching points and
> drive them home, hence the two units shown in the initial
> construction. This is already a long-standing, well-exercised and
> understood procedure in LEO from the results of all the other
> previous space missions. I know it was not clear from the earlier
> draft what any of the mechanics of the assembly stages were to be,
> but I now realise why this would raise questions in your mind about
> the reasons why hoppers should appear at this early stage of
> construction.
>
>
>
> Jan
>
>
>
> ........by the way, much of the configuration of this constructor
> vehicle is based on those working in another 'weightless'
> environment, that of deep-sea recovery, so I do not expect the
> experience of handling construction in space to be much more
> different inertially than that in the oceans, except the visibility
> would be that much better, and there would be no tidal currents!
>
>
> 
>

I just realized that this exchange between Jim Brown and myself about issues for
equatorial orbits took place off our Yahoo. See below, with most recent at the
top...

Ueli
=================

If you are in the same orbit but ahead or behind much then yes it takes two
delta Vs to get close. If you don't care if it takes a many obits then the
adjustments can be quite small. If you want to do the adjustment in just one
orbit or so then the delta V must be much more significant.

Yes it normally takes many micro adjustments to doc but those are very slight
adjustments. If you are in an orbit with different periods then you will
normally will make those delta Vs when are close, but yes sometimes that is not
practical. The greatest change in orbital height is half an orbit from that
delta V. Yes sometimes it is best to combine the eccentric and elliptical change
as one delta V.

Actually it is possible to catch the other with two burns. If you are in the
same circular orbit but ahead, or behind you make one burn to put you in a very
elliptical orbit. This lengthens or decreases orbit time. Yes you make a
breaking burn slow down, dropping into a lower orbit where you end up going
faster and have a much faster orbit period if you need to catch something much
different that is so. It takes a fair amount of an orbit to make this true. Of
cores you can not safely drop into a much lower orbit when in LEO so normally
you or the object going to should go into a faster higher orbit which leaves you
going slower and into a much slower period. When docking this can be ignored as
long as this does not take a significant part of the orbit. If you are two feet
away from docking but traveling exactly matching then you may speed up six
inches per minute and dock in four minutes, and the orbital mechanics can
temporarily be nearly ignored.

Jim Brown

From: Ueli Scheuermeier <uscheuermeier@...>
To: james brown <jim2mars@...>
Sent: Sun, November 15, 2009 10:51:25 AM
Subject: Re: [NEAmines] Re: FIRST RACK: Rack in LEO - - why equatorial orbit?

Thanks Jim for confirming the basic soundness of the equatorial launches.

I just have a question concerning rendezvous. You mention for diverse orbital
shifts a number of delta-V manoeuvers. I understand that to mean to get from one
orbit to the other. However, for rendezvous we may need more, and often also
timed correctly? I mean: Two craft can be in exactly the same orbit (plane and
all), but on opposing sides around Earth. For them to meet, one of them would
have to:

1. Boost against the line of travel --> braking --> drop in orbital altitude.
2. After reaching lower altitude, boost against the line of travel --> brake
again to stay at the lower altitude instead of swinging back up again.

Now the vehicle in the lower orbit catches up with the one in the higher orbit.
Then, at the appropriate moment:

3. Boost in the line of travel --> speed up --> climb to the altitude where the
other vehicle orbits. This boost must be timed exactly so that when the vehicle
reaches the higher orbit the other vehicle is there at the same time.
4. Boost again in the line of travel --> speed up to maintain that altitude
instead of dropping back down again.

Then proceed to dock. The counterintuitive thing here is that if you're a pilot
in a vehicle and you want to catch up with a dock that is orbiting ahead of you,
you actually have to brake twice and move downwards away from the target, and
vice versa. No wonder manual dock only works at very short distances.

So, a simple rendezvous in the same orbital plane is actually a four-burn
affair. Did I get that right?

Ueli

--- On Sat, 11/14/09, james brown <jim2mars@...> wrote:


     From: james brown <jim2mars@...>
     Subject: Re: [NEAmines] Re: FIRST RACK: Rack in LEO - - why equatorial
orbit?
     To: "Ueli" <uscheuermeier@...>
     Date: Saturday, November 14, 2009, 10:20 PM

     Actually an orbit is an ellipse and a circle is a special ellipse. Most of
what you say here is true. Orbital change in the same plane takes one or two
delta Vs. If the orbits intersect then only one is needed. Otherwise two are.
The timing of the first is not important if the first orbit is circular.
Normally the first delta V is an ellipse, and then the second is circular. The
more difficult orbit changes are eccentric and on different planes. Orbital
changes from one plane to another normally take three delta Vs and the timings
are critical.

     Sometimes it is cheaper to do the first burn and then an in plane first and
then to the out of plane adjustment, but then the timing is even more critical.
What you said is still good.

     It is very true that equatorial launches are the most economical and put us
in orbits that are very repeatable and much easer to repeat and dock to.

     Jim Brown

--- In NEAmines@yahoogroups.com, "Ueli" <uscheuermeier@...> wrote:
>
>
> Just to get this out of the way: Why do we want the rack - and later
LEOstation - to be orbiting in the equatorial plane?
>
> 1. Additional fling from Earths spin to reach orbital speed.
> First of all, launching from the equator needs less power to reach orbital
speeds, because the Earths spinning adds a few thousand km/sec to the speed of
the vehicle if it climbs into orbit in an eastward direction. And that spin and
additional fling is biggest exactly at the equator. That's why all the launch
bases are always as near to the equator as possible (Florida for the US, Guyana
for the Europeans, Baikonur for the Sowjets, India with Sriharikotta, and more
recently China which is shifting south to its new base in Hainan).
> However, near the equator a few hundred kilometers north or south doesn't
matter all that much, since Earths spin-radius increases only slightly when
going towards the equator.
>
> 2. Ease of navigation, launch windows
> A much more important reason are the orbital planes. An orbit is a circle, and
that circle is on a plane that cuts through Earth's gravitational center and out
into space. When we launch a vehicle from - say - Cape Canaveral, then it first
heads due East over the Atlantic but soon heads south because it must travel in
a plane that cuts through Earths center. And once in orbit that vehicle will
always stay in exactly the same plane, while - looked at from outer space -
Earth spins on eastward. That's why satellites - viewed from Earth - come over a
few hundred or thousand kilometers to the west on their next orbit, even though
they actually stick to their orbit and Earth spins beneath them.
> Now, let's launch a second vehicle a few hours later again from Canaveral.
Again the rocket heads due east and then south, and then climbs into orbit. But
this orbital plane is now different from that of the vehicle launched a few
hours ago because Earth moved on in the meantime. We end up with two orbital
planes that intersect in a straight line going through the center of Earth.
>
> So how can we make sure that two vehicles in their separate orbits can
actually meet each other? We first have to make sure they are both in the same
orbital plane. And once they are in the same orbital plane we must boost them
further out or brake them further in until they meet up. How do we make sure
they are in the same orbital plane? There are two ways:
> a. Wait for the launch of the second vehicle for 24 hours so it inserts into
orbit exactly 24 hours after the first vehicle. The penalty for this is that one
has very narrow launch windows.
> b. Do a "dogleg" manoeuvre in orbit. This means kick the vehicle horizontally
sideways on its path when it hits the straight intersecting line between the two
orbital planes. This sideways kick makes it fly a "dogleg" from its original
orbital plane into that of the vehicle it needs to meet. And once it's done that
we need to change the altitude and all that so they meet. This dogleg has the
penalty of needing mass to use in boosters for doing the kick. Theoretically one
can over time dogleg an equatorial orbit (ie. over the equator) into a polar
orbit (ie one that flies over the poles). Here the two orbital planes are
perpendicular to each other. A 90 degree dogleg needs as much boosting energy as
it would to launch a vehicle into orbit. The logic is this: One has to brake the
speed along the equator down to zero, which is equivalent to sitting on the
surface, and replace it with speed over the poles, which is equivalent to
putting something into orbit.
>
> Now, if our rack is orbiting in the equatorial plane, and the rockets are
launched from the equator, we don't have to worry about doglegs or launch
windows, and their penalties. What's more, all the stuff we launch would be
moving one behind the other, with small relative speeds to each other - and that
is going to be a relief for navigation and for worries about collisions.
>
> Another issue is "circular" orbit. Our rack is proposed to be at 300km
"circular" orbit. That too helps a lot for navigation. (300km is about what the
space station is doing now, high enough to only worry every now and then about
atmospheric drag). A circular orbit is much easier to match up with than an
elliptical one.
>
> So, am I tracking right here? I'm really just applying common sense here and
some high-school geometry. Those who know more about orbits could please come in
and okay this or please correct it.
>
> Thanks
> Ueli

Sorry, just see that I addressed Jan, when actually I was talking to Joe
Pallaia. But of course the question is for everybody.

Ueli

--- In NEAmines@yahoogroups.com, Ueli Scheuermeier <uscheuermeier@...> wrote:
>
> Jan,
>
> Peer-review is a given. That's been clear. So just telling us it must be
peer-reviewed isn't very helpful.
>
> Which peers do you suggest? It seems to me our whole group is already a pretty
large peer group from very diverse competencies. Which other "peers" would you
suggest should have a look at it, and how would those "peers" have an influence
on how it is published?
>
> The academic process of peer-review is when a publishing committee looks
through a contribution on whether it meets the standards of the journal or
whatever it is...   But to be honest I'm less interested in an academic due
diligence and rather in meeting potential investors - who tend not to bother
about academic procedures and rather on the advice of their "peers" on whether
something is worth looking into or not.
>
> So it would be helpful to say a bit more than just "wherever you publish".
Give us an idea WHERE we should think of publishing, and therefore presenting
our contribution to the peer-review process of that publication.
>
> Ueli
>
> --- On Mon, 11/16/09, Joseph E. Palaia, IV <joe@...> wrote:
>
> From: Joseph E. Palaia, IV <joe@...>
> Subject: [NEAmines] Re: PUBLISH OUR WORK - separate new discussion//publish?
> To: NEAmines@yahoogroups.com
> Date: Monday, November 16, 2009, 6:40 PM
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>  
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>       Wherever you publish... make sure it is peer-reviewed.
>
>
>
> Joe
>
>
>
> ------------ --------- --------- --------- --------
>
> Joseph E. Palaia, IV
>
> Vice President - Operations / R&D
>
> 4Frontiers Corporation   www.4FrontiersCorp. com
>

"Actually, I believe assembling further craft will become much more important initially than assembly for expanding the grid structure. I mean: Early on there need to be grapplers and twiddlers that can stick together the components that will make up the bigger tugs. 

Hmmm....... or save a lot of grief by launching a tug all in one for immediate use on Ariane et al. Thinking of the SeaBees here, as they roll their bulldozers off the landing craft into the surf of a Pacific island and immediately start levelling runways."

Jan

from James Wilson
spacetrader.net

Do we have a garden thread? at some point
habitat in space needs to be self sufficient.




>> OK, Ueli, not sure this all makes sense......
>>
>> On 15 Nov 2009, at 21:26, Ueli wrote:
>> Jan,
>>
>> Lots of points there to explore. You certainly make it clear how the
>> big thing builds up from simple much smaller modules....
>>
>> Just to take up four issues in this post:
>>
>> 1. Size of mass-produced rocket.
>> ---------------------------------------------
>> You were referring to Ariane V as a launch vehicle for us. That of
>> course it totally out of the question, because Ariane V is much too
>> expensive (after all it was originally built to be human rated, and
>> therefore the sheer opposite of our "mass produced rocket for cheap
>> payloads"). So later you make it clear that we're talking of an
>> Ariane V "sized" vehicle. And that would mean payloads of around 20
>> tons to LEO.
>>
>> All right, so we're talking of our mass-produced rockets as being 20
>> ton monsters like Ariane? Phew... Sea-launched from the equator?
>> Yeah, well.... - why not?
>>
>> Well, it is a question of serious investor intent, and if they are
>> not willing to foot the bill for a major infrastructure injection
>> into orbit, they do not belong in the business. One has to compare
>> the massive investment of hardware in Earth-based oil and gas
>> exploration, ore and diamond mining etc. With the intention of moving
>> outwards into the most hostile environment possible, one cannot go
>> dressed only in one's underwear so to speak, it is not likely to be
>> cheaply done with success.
>>
>> Ariane is an example, but there are other launch options for hire
>> from the Russians, the Chinese and the Japanese, and no doubt there
>> will be others. So where are the costed comparisons? One Ariane is
>> capable of launching a bundle of different hardware in one go, the
>> equivalent of ten Falcons, and so can gain on the construction time
>> cycles issue, as well as gaining a mix of useable elements altogether
>> in one orbit. Note: Ariane also launches from near the Equator already.
>>
>> And let's compare that with another option: A smaller classical
>> rocket more similar to a Falcon with maybe 2 tons to LEO?
>>
>> So what are the tradeoffs between a 20 ton mass-produced rocket and a
>> 2 ton mass-produced rocket with regard to:
>> 1. MRG (Modularity, redundancy, granularity)
>> 2. Ease of launch operations
>>
>> Ten times the complexity of launch operations, delays and orbital
>> windows, plus rendezvous issues with maybe extra fuel with extra
>> navigation coordination? Equatorial?
>>
>> 3. Costs
>>
>>
>>
>> 2. Assembly
>> -----------------
>> That "orbital constructor" that you show in my opinion will do very
>> little construction itself. By far the most construction will be
>> undertaken by Robonauts firmly holding onto the already existing
>> structure. The reason is leverage, I think! So that graph should
>> rather be what Cherryh in her books calls a "pusher". That's a craft
>> that brings materials to the site of construction, where a robonaut
>> will take it and grapple and twiddle it into place.
>>
>> If you notice, the 'constructor' has two pairs of arms, one pair for
>> gripping, and one pair for manipulation. This means it can attach
>> itself to a hex for leverage and then manipulate a construction
>> element into place. It may also take thirty years to design a
>> suitable robonaut to do the job a man can do tomorrow!? Now is it
>> cheaper to fund that, buy expensive robotics from a third party, or
>> send men up for experience cycles on simpler stuff, in preparation
>> for the larger constructions. A fixed installed arm will not be
>> flexible enough to construct across the full range of the Dock. A
>> mobile unit is essential (pretty much what role the Shuttle performs
>> - the first orbital constructor).
>>
>> And no, I feel that orbital constructor in no way will be comparable
>> to the tug that goes off to catch and bring to the rack further cans
>> of water launched into LEO. The first tug will be much more like a
>> miniature version of the tug we had already designed for the job.
>>
>> Have you any data on remote signal delay to LEO yet?
>>
>> Actually, I believe assembling further craft will become much more
>> important initially than assembly for expanding the grid structure. I
>> mean: Early on there need to be grapplers and twiddlers that can
>> stick together the components that will make up the bigger tugs.
>>
>> Hmmm....... or save a lot of grief by launching a tug all in one for
>> immediate use on Ariane et al. Thinking of the SeaBees here, as they
>> roll their bulldozers off the landing craft into the surf of a
>> Pacific island and immediately start levelling runways.
>>
>> I guess that will be the very first operational capacity we need to
>> be aiming for after having shown we can accumulate water and have
>> demonstrated we can haul in a chunk of debris: Put together the
>> bigger tugs and mass-produced scouts and prospectors from crated
>> components shot into LEO. So where are those grapplers and twiddlers?
>>
>> Tentative steps may be OK for football-field rocketeers, but putting
>> up expensive miniatures that will later be junked now seems to me to
>> be counter productive in an industrial sense. This kind of operation
>> will not be small and personal but a juggernaut once unleashed, and
>> mining enterprises think and design BIG. One has just  to browse any
>> current oil or mining operation to appreciate this. One has to open a
>> wide gate through the infrastructure through which material can pour,
>> not trickle, to gain the kind of income to sustain the process.
>>
>> I believe that even before we have a single hex-module, we'll be
>> having a hexagonal ring with grapplers on it that can reach into the
>> center where the craft is that is being stuck together and fitted
>> out. As I said in another post: That hexagonal ring could well just
>> be one end of the standard hex-module. So Jan, even your very first
>> image 03 is for me already too much.
>>
>> Too much for what, Ueli, why the restraint? This is a railway in the
>> sky, to be designed to run thousands of tons of minerals back to
>> home. A new industrial revolution, except we know already how the
>> locomotives work, and just have to decide where to build the
>> stations! The Japanese are planning to use existing Bigelows to open
>> an orbital hotel right now. Making a toy JCB that can only move sand
>> is not proof of concept for one that is able to move boulders?
>>
>> If one looks at the actual volumetric mass of a hex module as a
>> bundle of components, it will be noticed that it is mostly a bundle
>> of air surrounded by hollow alloy tubes. I think you are mistaking
>> volume enclosed for mass here : )
>>
>> This was the whole point of this design, launched as knock-down
>> components it is very light, and low volume. Launched whole, it is
>> still lightweight but can be packed with other materials.....oh, all
>> right, then, even small cans of water, but preferably folded foil
>> solar cells.
>>
>> And I really have trouble imagining a full-scale hopper as the first
>> container up there. But hey, I might be wrong.... I don't think
>> hoppers with all their fittings will have anything to do at the rack
>> until we have the first large missions going off to asteroids. We got
>> to think in terms of simple "water cans" as possible.
>>
>> The hopper IS the only water can shown here! So we get a large
>> stockpile of water launched for ongoing fuelling for construction,
>> then the empty hopper is delegated for the asteroid missions,
>> meanwhile another hopper of water is launched from Earth as needed,
>> and so the components for the first NEOminer missions accumulate with
>> no waste.
>>
>>
>>
>> 3. Tidal boom
>> -------------------
>> I now think we will already very early on need a tidal boom for
>> creating stability. Already when the second larger tug will be stuck
>> together, the grapplers will be hauling around mass, and that will
>> already make the whole structure wobble. A tidal boom will help
>> against that. At any rate, already your image 04, ie your proposal
>> for the first structure in LEO (which for me is way too big) will
>> experience substantial tidal forces and align itself. Better make
>> sure it aligns itself as we want it to.
>>
>> Not so sure about that. The tidal boom was only an asset in dealing
>> with stabilising a rotating element, in which it succeeded well,
>> judging by the physical trial. There is not such an issue with the
>> rack, and as it grows, a boom would be displaced from a C of G for
>> most of the time by the new additions. We know already that the ISS
>> works OK in this football field configuration, with its gyros (and we
>> would add METs), so not a problem. The larger the Dock's mass, the
>> less it will be subject to mass displacement by smaller craft, hence
>> the overall scale.
>>
>> from James Wilson
> spacetrader.net
>
> Hex shaped cans don't have space between them
> strung together in a large circle could be spun for
> a small gravity effect for the beginnings of a greenhouse.
>
>>
>>
>> 4. Cans, cans, cans
>> ---------------------------
>> I predict there will be hundreds if not thousands of empty cans at
>> the rack in LEO doing absolutely nothing by the time all water in LEO
>> will be coming from asteroids and such cans can be used several
>> times. So where do all those empty cans go? How about designing them
>> in a way that they can be bunched together for shielding?
>>
>> This I think is the greatest error, as one is designing a massive
>> waste product into the orbital stream of potential debris that simply
>> is without future purpose. An empty metal can is simply another
>> source of secondary radiation if used as a casing element in the
>> early stages ie: not filled with water OR regolith.
>>
>> A lot of round cans do not stack well for delivery without wasted
>> space between them, and one cannot use square cans in a round cargo
>> rocket without a similar issue. Each can would require valve gear,
>> thermal control and insulation, plus a means of fully extracting zero-
>> gee contents, this adds more wasted mass that will all be junked!!
>>
>> Sorry, to labour this point, but I am visualising a truckload of
>> jerry cans arriving at my local gas-station and being used to fill up
>> the underground petrol and diesel tanks in 25litre increments by hand
>> (since there is no machine that can do such a complex job), against
>> an articulated road-tanker that can transfer 9000 US gallons (34,000
>> litres) in minutes through sealed piping.
>>
>> Ueli
>>
>>
>>
>> Maybe a few more explanations here than those missing in my original
>> postings, hope this adds some light to the reasoning! Perhaps we
>> should be thinking more of the mean size of elements in the range of
>> the Big Yellow School Bus again.
>>
>>
>>
>> Jan
>
>
>
>
>

> OK, Ueli, not sure this all makes sense......
>
> On 15 Nov 2009, at 21:26, Ueli wrote:
> Jan,
>
> Lots of points there to explore. You certainly make it clear how the
> big thing builds up from simple much smaller modules....
>
> Just to take up four issues in this post:
>
> 1. Size of mass-produced rocket.
> ---------------------------------------------
> You were referring to Ariane V as a launch vehicle for us. That of
> course it totally out of the question, because Ariane V is much too
> expensive (after all it was originally built to be human rated, and
> therefore the sheer opposite of our "mass produced rocket for cheap
> payloads"). So later you make it clear that we're talking of an
> Ariane V "sized" vehicle. And that would mean payloads of around 20
> tons to LEO.
>
> All right, so we're talking of our mass-produced rockets as being 20
> ton monsters like Ariane? Phew... Sea-launched from the equator?
> Yeah, well.... - why not?
>
> Well, it is a question of serious investor intent, and if they are
> not willing to foot the bill for a major infrastructure injection
> into orbit, they do not belong in the business. One has to compare
> the massive investment of hardware in Earth-based oil and gas
> exploration, ore and diamond mining etc. With the intention of moving
> outwards into the most hostile environment possible, one cannot go
> dressed only in one's underwear so to speak, it is not likely to be
> cheaply done with success.
>
> Ariane is an example, but there are other launch options for hire
> from the Russians, the Chinese and the Japanese, and no doubt there
> will be others. So where are the costed comparisons? One Ariane is
> capable of launching a bundle of different hardware in one go, the
> equivalent of ten Falcons, and so can gain on the construction time
> cycles issue, as well as gaining a mix of useable elements altogether
> in one orbit. Note: Ariane also launches from near the Equator already.
>
> And let's compare that with another option: A smaller classical
> rocket more similar to a Falcon with maybe 2 tons to LEO?
>
> So what are the tradeoffs between a 20 ton mass-produced rocket and a
> 2 ton mass-produced rocket with regard to:
> 1. MRG (Modularity, redundancy, granularity)
> 2. Ease of launch operations
>
> Ten times the complexity of launch operations, delays and orbital
> windows, plus rendezvous issues with maybe extra fuel with extra
> navigation coordination? Equatorial?
>
> 3. Costs
>
>
>
> 2. Assembly
> -----------------
> That "orbital constructor" that you show in my opinion will do very
> little construction itself. By far the most construction will be
> undertaken by Robonauts firmly holding onto the already existing
> structure. The reason is leverage, I think! So that graph should
> rather be what Cherryh in her books calls a "pusher". That's a craft
> that brings materials to the site of construction, where a robonaut
> will take it and grapple and twiddle it into place.
>
> If you notice, the 'constructor' has two pairs of arms, one pair for
> gripping, and one pair for manipulation. This means it can attach
> itself to a hex for leverage and then manipulate a construction
> element into place. It may also take thirty years to design a
> suitable robonaut to do the job a man can do tomorrow!? Now is it
> cheaper to fund that, buy expensive robotics from a third party, or
> send men up for experience cycles on simpler stuff, in preparation
> for the larger constructions. A fixed installed arm will not be
> flexible enough to construct across the full range of the Dock. A
> mobile unit is essential (pretty much what role the Shuttle performs
> - the first orbital constructor).
>
> And no, I feel that orbital constructor in no way will be comparable
> to the tug that goes off to catch and bring to the rack further cans
> of water launched into LEO. The first tug will be much more like a
> miniature version of the tug we had already designed for the job.
>
> Have you any data on remote signal delay to LEO yet?
>
> Actually, I believe assembling further craft will become much more
> important initially than assembly for expanding the grid structure. I
> mean: Early on there need to be grapplers and twiddlers that can
> stick together the components that will make up the bigger tugs.
>
> Hmmm....... or save a lot of grief by launching a tug all in one for
> immediate use on Ariane et al. Thinking of the SeaBees here, as they
> roll their bulldozers off the landing craft into the surf of a
> Pacific island and immediately start levelling runways.
>
> I guess that will be the very first operational capacity we need to
> be aiming for after having shown we can accumulate water and have
> demonstrated we can haul in a chunk of debris: Put together the
> bigger tugs and mass-produced scouts and prospectors from crated
> components shot into LEO. So where are those grapplers and twiddlers?
>
> Tentative steps may be OK for football-field rocketeers, but putting
> up expensive miniatures that will later be junked now seems to me to
> be counter productive in an industrial sense. This kind of operation
> will not be small and personal but a juggernaut once unleashed, and
> mining enterprises think and design BIG. One has just  to browse any
> current oil or mining operation to appreciate this. One has to open a
> wide gate through the infrastructure through which material can pour,
> not trickle, to gain the kind of income to sustain the process.
>
> I believe that even before we have a single hex-module, we'll be
> having a hexagonal ring with grapplers on it that can reach into the
> center where the craft is that is being stuck together and fitted
> out. As I said in another post: That hexagonal ring could well just
> be one end of the standard hex-module. So Jan, even your very first
> image 03 is for me already too much.
>
> Too much for what, Ueli, why the restraint? This is a railway in the
> sky, to be designed to run thousands of tons of minerals back to
> home. A new industrial revolution, except we know already how the
> locomotives work, and just have to decide where to build the
> stations! The Japanese are planning to use existing Bigelows to open
> an orbital hotel right now. Making a toy JCB that can only move sand
> is not proof of concept for one that is able to move boulders?
>
> If one looks at the actual volumetric mass of a hex module as a
> bundle of components, it will be noticed that it is mostly a bundle
> of air surrounded by hollow alloy tubes. I think you are mistaking
> volume enclosed for mass here : )
>
> This was the whole point of this design, launched as knock-down
> components it is very light, and low volume. Launched whole, it is
> still lightweight but can be packed with other materials.....oh, all
> right, then, even small cans of water, but preferably folded foil
> solar cells.
>
> And I really have trouble imagining a full-scale hopper as the first
> container up there. But hey, I might be wrong.... I don't think
> hoppers with all their fittings will have anything to do at the rack
> until we have the first large missions going off to asteroids. We got
> to think in terms of simple "water cans" as possible.
>
> The hopper IS the only water can shown here! So we get a large
> stockpile of water launched for ongoing fuelling for construction,
> then the empty hopper is delegated for the asteroid missions,
> meanwhile another hopper of water is launched from Earth as needed,
> and so the components for the first NEOminer missions accumulate with
> no waste.
>
>
>
> 3. Tidal boom
> -------------------
> I now think we will already very early on need a tidal boom for
> creating stability. Already when the second larger tug will be stuck
> together, the grapplers will be hauling around mass, and that will
> already make the whole structure wobble. A tidal boom will help
> against that. At any rate, already your image 04, ie your proposal
> for the first structure in LEO (which for me is way too big) will
> experience substantial tidal forces and align itself. Better make
> sure it aligns itself as we want it to.
>
> Not so sure about that. The tidal boom was only an asset in dealing
> with stabilising a rotating element, in which it succeeded well,
> judging by the physical trial. There is not such an issue with the
> rack, and as it grows, a boom would be displaced from a C of G for
> most of the time by the new additions. We know already that the ISS
> works OK in this football field configuration, with its gyros (and we
> would add METs), so not a problem. The larger the Dock's mass, the
> less it will be subject to mass displacement by smaller craft, hence
> the overall scale.
>
> from James Wilson
spacetrader.net

Hex shaped cans don't have space between them
strung together in a large circle could be spun for
a small gravity effect for the beginnings of a greenhouse.

>
>
> 4. Cans, cans, cans
> ---------------------------
> I predict there will be hundreds if not thousands of empty cans at
> the rack in LEO doing absolutely nothing by the time all water in LEO
> will be coming from asteroids and such cans can be used several
> times. So where do all those empty cans go? How about designing them
> in a way that they can be bunched together for shielding?
>
> This I think is the greatest error, as one is designing a massive
> waste product into the orbital stream of potential debris that simply
> is without future purpose. An empty metal can is simply another
> source of secondary radiation if used as a casing element in the
> early stages ie: not filled with water OR regolith.
>
> A lot of round cans do not stack well for delivery without wasted
> space between them, and one cannot use square cans in a round cargo
> rocket without a similar issue. Each can would require valve gear,
> thermal control and insulation, plus a means of fully extracting zero-
> gee contents, this adds more wasted mass that will all be junked!!
>
> Sorry, to labour this point, but I am visualising a truckload of
> jerry cans arriving at my local gas-station and being used to fill up
> the underground petrol and diesel tanks in 25litre increments by hand
> (since there is no machine that can do such a complex job), against
> an articulated road-tanker that can transfer 9000 US gallons (34,000
> litres) in minutes through sealed piping.
>
> Ueli
>
>
>
> Maybe a few more explanations here than those missing in my original
> postings, hope this adds some light to the reasoning! Perhaps we
> should be thinking more of the mean size of elements in the range of
> the Big Yellow School Bus again.
>
>
>
> Jan

Ariane 5’s mission with NSS-12 and THOR 6 was performed from
the Spaceport’s ELA-3 launch site in French Guiana.


http://www.arianespace.com/news-mission-update/2009/655.asp

http://www.arianespace.com/news-press-release/2009/10-29-09-mission-
success.asp

http://www.arianespace.com/news-mission-update/2009/655.asp

http://www.arianespace.com/images/launch-kits/launch-kit-pdf-eng/
NSS12_THOR6_GB.pdf



Jan

A hard rain is going to fall......

http://www.newsdaily.com/stories/tre5a31v6-us-space-debris/

A ball of twisted metal, purported to be fallen space junk, is pictured
on a farm in Southwestern Queensland in this undated handout
photograph received March 28, 2008


Jan

Wherever you publish... make sure it is peer-reviewed.

Joe

-----------------------------------------------
Joseph E. Palaia, IV
Vice President - Operations / R&D
4Frontiers Corporation   www.4FrontiersCorp.com

Jan,

Lots of points there to explore. You certainly make it clear how the big thing
builds up from simple much smaller modules....

Just to take up four issues in this post:

1. Size of mass-produced rocket.
---------------------------------------------
You were referring to Ariane V as a launch vehicle for us. That of course it
totally out of the question, because Ariane V is much too expensive (after all
it was originally built to be human rated, and therefore the sheer opposite of
our "mass produced rocket for cheap payloads"). So later you make it clear that
we're talking of an Ariane V "sized" vehicle. And that would mean payloads of
around 20 tons to LEO.

All right, so we're talking of our mass-produced rockets as being 20 ton
monsters like Ariane? Phew... Sea-launched from the equator? Yeah, well.... -
why not?

And let's compare that with another option: A smaller classical rocket more
similar to a Falcon with maybe 2 tons to LEO?

So what are the tradeoffs between a 20 ton mass-produced rocket and a 2 ton
mass-produced rocket with regard to:
1. MRG (Modularity, redundancy, granularity)
2. Ease of launch operations
3. Costs

2. Assembly
-----------------
That "orbital constructor" that you show in my opinion will do very little
construction itself. By far the most construction will be undertaken by
Robonauts firmly holding onto the already existing structure. The reason is
leverage, I think! So that graph should rather be what Cherryh in her books
calls a "pusher". That's a craft that brings materials to the site of
construction, where a robonaut will take it and grapple and twiddle it into
place.
And no, I feel that orbital constructor in no way will be comparable to the tug
that goes off to catch and bring to the rack further cans of water launched into
LEO. The first tug will be much more like a miniature version of the tug we had
already designed for the job.

Actually, I believe assembling further craft will become much more important
initially than assembly for expanding the grid structure. I mean: Early on there
need to be grapplers and twiddlers that can stick together the components that
will make up the bigger tugs. I guess that will be the very first operational
capacity we need to be aiming for after having shown we can accumulate water and
have demonstrated we can haul in a chunk of debris: Put together the bigger tugs
and mass-produced scouts and prospectors from crated components shot into LEO.
So where are those grapplers and twiddlers?

I believe that even before we have a single hex-module, we'll be having a
hexagonal ring with grapplers on it that can reach into the center where the
craft is that is being stuck together and fitted out. As I said in another post:
That hexagonal ring could well just be one end of the standard hex-module. So
Jan, even your very first image 03 is for me already too much- And I really have
trouble imagining a full-scale hopper as the first container up there. But hey,
I might be wrong....  I don't think hoppers with all their fittings will have
anything to do at the rack until we have the first large missions going off to
asteroids. We got to think in terms of simple "water cans" as possible.

3. Tidal boom
-------------------
I now think we will already very early on need a tidal boom for creating
stability. Already when the second larger tug will be stuck together, the
grapplers will be hauling around mass, and that will already make the whole
structure wobble. A tidal boom will help against that. At any rate, already your
image 04, ie your proposal for the first structure in LEO (which for me is way
too big) will experience substantial tidal forces and align itself. Better make
sure it aligns itself as we want it to.

4. Cans, cans, cans
---------------------------
I predict there will be hundreds if not thousands of empty cans at the rack in
LEO doing absolutely nothing by the time all water in LEO will be coming  from
asteroids and such cans can be used several times. So where do all those empty
cans go? How about designing them in a way that they can be bunched together for
shielding?

Ueli




--- In NEAmines@yahoogroups.com, EOS Mars Program <eos.mars.program@...> wrote:
>
> On 14 Nov 2009, at 06:27, ueli24 wrote:
> Wow Jan, you do think big, huh? I mean that rack in LEO that you have
> figured is HUGE! (I'm responding to it by hauling it over into this
> thread here).
>
> Well, Ueli, this has to start with the 'Big Picture', after all most
> commercially viable enterprises work through the economy of scale. I
> have not found one type of new resource acquisition organisation that
> does not work at this scale!
>
>
> If I get you rightly, the basic construction module is the hexagonal
> thing you had figured as kind of the "spine" of the large freighter.
> Right? And you stick those together into the large rectangles, into
> which we then stick the large tanks etc. , with the hoppers stuck to
> the outside fringes where tugs can easily reach.
>
> â€"â€"On the button there, Ueli, and the advantage of this is that the
> hexes are a fundamental building block concept transferable to other
> projects without the necessity of much retooling for production. The
> frame can be 'grown' to an unlimited size over time as resources
> allow, to achieve the kind of scale illustrated.
>
> Hm.... yep, works. I like it.
>
> But I'd like to throw this challenge at your graphical skills and at
> all the others brains on our group to help sort out: What will the
> VERY FIRST thing look like that is orbiting at 300km altitude, and
> that can earn money as a base for the very first tug? Just for the
> heck of it, I'd like to scale that way down, brutally down, so far
> down that it can't be much more than showing that our concept of
> operating tugs in LEO works. So that rack goes down to a single
> hexagonal module I'll call a "beecomb-cell" (which is a hexagonal
> tube), or maybe even just one hexagonal ring, ie. open rim of that
> bee-cell . Hm.... all right, let's call that an "embryonic" rack. (Oh
> yes, and our tugs and robonauts and freeflying EVA pods are all the
> worker bees.... Man, nature sure knows how to organize construction!).
>
> â€"â€""Given the basic outline of this format, some consideration
> needs to be given to the assembly staging process of intermediate
> steps that allow production to be established with the minimum
> configuration, while enabling expansion of the platform to be
> steadily achieved, through initial Earth to orbit delivery, as well
> as onsite manufacture."
>
>
> Let's see what the minimal operational requirements would have to be
> for our proof of operational concept for the LEO tug? Okay, so what
> we need to demonstrate is this:
>
> 1.
> Our very first tug will be much smaller than the one we had discussed
> earlier, actually it would have to be an almost miniature version of
> it. Why? Because we need to launch it fully integrated and
> operational on a rocket, ie. we can't assemble it in orbit. So it's
> no different to launching a satellite - so probably will be the size
> of a typical medium-sized satellite, ie. the size of a small car.
>
>
>
> â€"â€" with you on that one already..........! This one is manned for
> LEOstation construction as well as later rack work, but there is no
> reason why this cannot be tele-operated and life support systems
> replaced with extra fuel and energy reserves. I would see this having
> micro-METs for distance movement and maybe just easily replenished
> compressed gas for fine control orientation thrusters.
>
>
>
> [Orbital Constructor â€" Image 01]
>
> 
> [Orbital Constructor â€" Image 02]
>
> 
>
> 2.
> After launch that tug will have to rendezvous with a first container
> previously launched into 300km circular equatorial orbit. That
> container has:
> - enough water on it for the tug to tank for its first mission
> - enough construction elements the tug can unpack and stick together,
> building that first embryonic rack into which further cans of water
> can be stuck.
>
> 3.
> After rendezvous the tug uses its grapplers and twiddlers to unpack
> the container and builds what needs to be built. After that it tanks
> water from the container and goes on its first mission.
>
> 4.
> The first mission will be:
> Pick up a can of water shot up on a separate launch and bring it to
> the embryonic rack. After arrival there must be considerably more
> water at the embryonic rack - including the water in the tanks on the
> tug - than was the case before the tug left on its mission.
> ==> proof of operational concept that we have a system that can fuel
> itself and stock fuel for later missions that are NOT for picking up
> water.
>
>
>
> [Hopper (maximum three per hex) and single Hex Module detail â€" Image
> 03]
>
> 
>
> So while the tug is away on its mission, the embryonic rack... hm,
> does what? Nothing at all! But how must it look like for the tug to
> stick the can of water it brought somewhere on the rack and go fetch
> the next can of water.....
>
> I mean, so far, the thing flying in orbit might be only a few meters
> across...., without the cans of water of course. (oh yes, how do the
> cans of water look like we shoot up from Earth on our mass-produced
> (small?) rockets? Certainly not like a hopper, I would guess! More
> nearly like the "cartridges" we had thought of that are tucked into
> the tug?)
>
> â€"â€" from the supporting work I did for the North Carolina
> engineering students, it was clear that the hopper is a viable launch
> entity for delivery by an Ariane V launcher. I believe it is
> necessary to go for the jugular here, without passing through a pack-
> mule and pick-axe stage, as other, lesser hardware will be a wasted,
> obsolescent form of launch investment that will have to be
> immediately junked. The bottom line is, we do not have to demonstrate
> what already can be (and has been) proved by existing space programs.
> We are only combining existing technologies and methods in different
> ways for a single-minded purpose. The logic is to assemble the off-
> the-shelf suppliers and contractors with the experience to manifest
> our concepts using their existing methods and hardware.
>
> http://www.eosmarsprogram.org/Page25-01a-Belt.html
>
> Then, once we can show that actually we can accumulate water in LEO
> for reaction mass, we will then need to demonstrate we can do useful
> stuff with that LEO tug. I think of go-getting a piece of pesky
> basket-ball sized debris that is a permanent headache of either ISS
> or our own base, bring it to base and park it there. Hey, this is a
> small tug, so no big debris to haul in with this dwarf of a tug, but
> a strong demo that we know how to do it. That should get people
> starting to think of all the things we can do with a tug.
>
> â€"â€" the thing that really has to be proved is the commercial and
> capital investment demand to supply scarce metals in a world of
> rapidly declining reserves.
>
> Then we start picking up other stuff than just water, such as (in
> sequence..):
> - A robonaut that will work on further building the rack while the
> tug is away, and while the tug is there help in maneouvering stuff
> around with its own arms and storing it at useful places.
> - Further construction elements to build out and stabilize the
> embryonic rack to accomodate strong grapplers and maybe the twiddlers.
> - The grapplers and twiddlers that will allow to assemble large stuff
> at the rack.
> - The parts of larger tugs crated in containers to be assembled in
> orbit by the grapplers and twiddlers and robonaut on the embryonic rack.
>
> â€"â€" apart from the (red) manufactury stations (CMVR etc), then all
> the existing elements are of a scale that are launchable by Ariane V
> size launchers, and of a type of structure already having been placed
> in orbit by some mission or other. So the actual constraints here are
> the cost per launch to achieve each level of operational practice:
>
> "....consideration needs to be given to the assembly staging process
> of intermediate steps that allow production to be established with
> the minimum configuration......"
>
>
> So here is the challenge: How does the very first embryonic rack look
> like? Let's see, what stages do we need to visualize?
> 1. First rendezvous of tug with the orbiting container
> 2. What the rack looks like when the tug departs on its first mission
> 3. What the rack looks like when the tug has returned from its first
> and second and third mission, accumulating enough water in LEO for
> doing the other stuff - ahm, let's say how the rack looks like after
> the tug has brought in the first piece of junk, and that would mean
> there are already a number of empty cans at the rack....
> 4. What the rack looks like when the robonaut has extended it further
> and grapplers and twiddlers have been added for first assemblies in
> orbit.
> 5. Large tug being unpacked and stuck together at the rack.
>
>
>
> [Embryonic Rack assembled possible first stage, (or even less eg: two
> hexes and tanks only)â€" Image 04]
>
> 
> [Embryonic Rack assembled next stage â€" Image 05]
>
> Note: The above modules are what was left by deleting all the other
> attached elements in exact reversed progression. No other changes had
> to be made.
>
> Yeah, and from then on out it just all expands gradually.... ahm, so
> what happens with the empty cans? I mean we're not going to throw
> them away and clutter up our orbit, are we? Until we can send empty
> cans on missions for fetching water from asteroids, we will be
> accumulating not only water in LEO (and we'll be using that of
> course), but we will also be accumulating an ever growing number of
> empty cans that had brought the water from Earth to LEO. What happens
> with them? Construction element? Mass for a tidal boom? Shielding?
>
> â€"â€" Aha! You have put your finger exactly on the point I was
> making. No -- we throw nothing away. It is all 'A-list' equipment
> built for purpose and ready to move into its final role. Why waste
> time and money?
>
> So folks, did I miss out on anything important at this very first
> critically important "embryonic" stage? Any ideas? As I said, I'd
> like to this time really cut it down to the brutally realistic here
> and now, I mean, stuff that would be orbiting within a year or two
> after having found the funding and put together the engineering
> logistics to make it happen.
>
> Ueli
>
>
> I hope that I have contextualised the growth process behind the
> initial large layout. The seed crystal of the hex module allows
> massive complexity from a simple element.
>
> â€"â€" Apparently although the human genome allows the development of
> a brain with 10 billion billion inter-neural connections, our genetic
> code (discounting junk DNA redundancies) has about the same number of
> bits as the computer code for Microsoft Word : )
>
> To sustain the infrastructure that allows full commercial development
> means creating a flow-through of material above a certain critical
> mass, as maintaining a foothold in space requires a high ongoing cost
> on a daily basis. By the way, it is very clear that cleaning up the
> station and rack's orbital corridor from speeding debris should
> commence from day one, or much of this is not going to survive long-
> term!!
>
> "Being hit by tiny chips of paint, aluminum, steel, and other types
> of space garbage is a regular part of Shuttle missions, according to
> data maintained by Johnson Space Center’s Hypervelocity Impact
> Technology Facility. In 54 missions from STS-50 through STS-114,
> space junk and meteoroids hit the Shuttle’s windows 1,634 times
> necessitating 92 window replacements. In addition, the Shuttle’s
> radiator was hit 317 times, actually causing holes in the radiator’s
> facesheet 53 times."
>
>
>
> Jan
>

More news today:

Lunar water may be more economic to upload in initial stages before
asteroid water is imported:
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn18155-impact-reveals-lunar-
water-by-the-bucketful.html


NASA considers beamed energy for shadow-engulfed lunar rovers:
http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20427344.000-
spaceelevatorinthemaking-wins-900000-nasa-prize.html

This is another important proof-of-concept confirmation relative to
the NEOminer rectenna system design.


Similarly, Japan is pursuing a commercial energy system in LEO:
http://news.discovery.com/space/japan-solar-space-station.html


Jan

Wow Jan, you do think big, huh? I mean that rack in LEO that you have figured is
HUGE! (I'm responding to it by hauling it over into this thread here).

If I get you rightly, the basic construction module is the hexagonal thing you
had figured as kind of the "spine" of the large freighter. Right? And you stick
those together into the large rectangles, into which we then stick the large
tanks etc. , with the hoppers stuck to the outside fringes where tugs can easily
reach.

Hm.... yep, works. I like it.

But I'd like to throw this challenge at your graphical skills and at all the
others brains on our group to help sort out: What will the VERY FIRST thing look
like that is orbiting at 300km altitude, and that can earn money as a base for
the very first tug? Just for the heck of it, I'd like to scale that way down,
brutally down, so far down that it can't be much more than showing that our
concept of operating tugs in LEO works. So that rack goes down to a single
hexagonal module I'll call a "beecomb-cell" (which is a hexagonal tube), or
maybe even just one hexagonal ring, ie. open rim of that bee-cell . Hm.... all
right, let's call that an "embryonic" rack. (Oh yes, and our tugs and robonauts
and freeflying EVA pods are all the worker bees.... Man, nature sure knows how
to organize construction!).

Let's see what the minimal operational requirements would have to be for our
proof of operational concept for the LEO tug? Okay, so what we need to
demonstrate is this:

1.
Our very first tug will be much smaller than the one we had discussed earlier,
actually it would have to be an almost miniature version of it. Why? Because we
need to launch it fully integrated and operational on a rocket, ie. we can't
assemble it in orbit. So it's no different to launching a satellite - so
probably will be the size of a typical medium-sized satellite, ie. the size of a
small car.

2.
After launch that tug will have to rendezvous with a first container perviously
launched into 300km circular equatorial orbit. That container has:
- enough water on it for the tug to tank for its first mission
- enough construction elements the tug can unpack and stick together, building
that first embryonic rack into which further cans of water can be stuck.

3.
After rendezvous the tug uses its grapplers and twiddlers to unpack the
container and builds what needs to be built. After that it tanks water from the
container and goes on its first mission.

4.
The first mission will be:
Pick up a can of water shot up on a separate launch and bring it to the
embryonic rack. After arrival there must be considerably more water at the
embryonic rack - including the water in the tanks on the tug - than was the case
before the tug left on its mission.
==> proof of operational concept that we have a system that can fuel itself and
stock fuel for later missions that are NOT for picking up water.

So while the tug is away on its mission, the embryonic rack... hm, does what?
Nothing at all! But how must it look like for the tug to stick the can of water
it brought somewhere on the rack and go fetch the next can of water.....

I mean, so far, the thing flying in orbit might be only a few meters across....,
without the cans of water of course. (oh yes, how do the cans of water look like
we shoot up from Earth on our mass-produced (small?) rockets? Certainly not like
a hopper, I would guess! More nearly like the "cartridges" we had thought of
that are tucked into the tug?)


Then, once we can show that actually we can accumulate water in LEO for reaction
mass, we will then need to demonstrate we can do useful stuff with that LEO tug.
I think of go-getting a piece of pesky basket-ball sized debris that is a
permanent headache of either ISS or our own base, bring it to base and park it
there. Hey, this is a small tug, so no big debris to haul in with this dwarf of
a tug, but a strong demo that we know how to do it. That should get people
starting to think of all the things we can do with a tug.

Then we start picking up other stuff than just water, such as (in sequence..):
- A robonaut that will work on further building the rack while the tug is away,
and while the tug is there help in maneouvering stuff around with its own arms
and storing it at useful places.
- Further construction elements to build out and stabilize the embryonic rack to
accomodate strong grapplers and maybe the twiddlers.
- The grapplers and twiddlers that will allow to assemble large stuff at the
rack.
- The parts of larger tugs crated in containers to be assembled in orbit by the
grapplers and twiddlers and robonaut on the embryonic rack.


So here is the challenge: How does the very first embryonic rack look like?
Let's see, what stages do we need to visualize?
1. First rendezvous of tug with the orbiting container
2. What the rack looks like when the tug departs on its first mission
3. What the rack looks like when the tug has returned from its first and second
and third mission, accumulating enough water in LEO for doing the other stuff -
ahm, let's say how the rack looks like after the tug has brought in the first
piece of junk, and that would mean there are already a number of empty cans at
the rack....
4. What the rack looks like when the robonaut has extended it further and
grapplers and twiddlers have been added for first assemblies in orbit.
5. Large tug being unpacked and stuck together at the rack.

Yeah, and from then on out it just all expands gradually....  ahm, so what
happens with the empty cans? I mean we're not going to throw them away and
clutter up our orbit, are we? Until we can send empty cans on missions for
fetching water from asteroids, we will be accumulating not only water in LEO
(and we'll be using that of course), but we will also be accumulating an ever
growing number of empty cans that had brought the water from Earth to LEO. What
happens with them? Construction element? Mass for a tidal boom? Shielding?

So folks, did I miss out on anything important at this very first critically
important "embryonic" stage? Any ideas? As I said, I'd like to this time really
cut it down to the brutally realistic here and now, I mean, stuff that would be
orbiting within a year or two after having found the funding and put together
the engineering logistics to make it happen.

Ueli

======================
Jans mail November 8th:

To kick-start the possible layout and interactions of the LEO orbital rack and
stockyard development, I drafted this visual yesterday:

[As it is a fairly large file (3.8Mb) I have uploaded it first to the EOS
server, it is a bit oversized for emailing without blocking your mailbox access
for some time.]

http://www.eosmarsprogram.org/LEOdock1-02.jpg

As I mentioned before, this platform could be assembled from standard hex
modules, shown in 'glossed' fuzzy mode here, and expanded from a basic maximum
frame module to four units (or more?). It can start from an even smaller core
unit rectangular frame, as the modular nature allows for this.

The main consideration in this layout was to separate the flow of incoming and
outgoing traffic into different vectors along one plane.

Then to integrate the conveyance of materials for production flow within each
unitary module.

Also to ensure the maximum exposure to incoming solar energy is achieved, while
at the same time maintaining the minimum profile of the processors' radiators
being presented to the sun. Note that, in one of the alternative metal
fabrication unit layout diagrams, the radiators will need re-orientating by 90º
to also take account of this.

Not shown are jet vectoring units to maintain the platform's orientation, or
materials/products conveyancing tubes, pressure cabins, or ancillary equipment
etc.

It has occurred to me in looking at this in detail, that it would make more
sense to move metal products in a powdered form in zero gee, as if pro-magnetic
they can be propelled by magnetic fields, or otherwise air-blown, or 'paddled'
by some peristaltic mechanism to move it through the system.

This is a material state that may also lend itself to unique sintered or other
methods of fast casting and shape forming, as well as premixing alloy
constituents accurately without long melt periods, and producing composites with
other materials etc.

This powdered material would also pack more efficiently with no voids for
delivery in Earth re-entry vehicles, and if there was a navigation error, could
explode harmlessly in the atmosphere like a spectacular firework, leaving little
but perhaps casing or shield residue to strike the ground. I could never
visualise how 'ingots' would stack in a cylinder without complexities. This also
offers added safety in an orbital context, should metals become dispersed by a
collision in LEO.

Although this is a fairly quick turn-around on a first draft, much visual
thought has been given to the concept over the last few months. Given the basic
outline of this format, some consideration needs to be given to the assembly
staging process of intermediate steps that allow production to be established
with the minimum configuration, while enabling expansion of the platform to be
steadily achieved, through initial Earth to orbit delivery, as well as onsite
manufacture.


Jan

Shaun,

You are pushing the same point as Joe Pallaia, and I think you are both right:
We need to present the results of our work to a wider interested public.

We had already thought about writing up something, and presenting it at a
suitable venue. If I remember rightly there is for instance this yearly
conference in Canada that does "space and mining" or something of the sort. Does
anybody remember? Jan, you tend to have such data at your fingertips.... ;-))

So I would like to launch a side-thread to our milestone with the following
questions:

1. Where do we present our results so far?

2. What shall we present?

3. Who will take the lead in putting the thing together?

4. Should we go for a conference and show ourselves there, instead of just
handing in a "paper"?
(Personally I'm not at all sure just a paper according to academic standards and
procedures gets us very far. We need to talk with the real people who can have a
stake in NEA mining).

5. Who should be going and present the thing? And how do we finance that?
(Personally, while I do a lot of international traveling to Africa or Asia and
Latin America, I do need to turn every coin when I do it. So for instance
investing a full week in Canada with flight and all is probably beyond my means.
I don't know about others. Is there a way to get funded by these conferences....
?).

Ueli


--- In NEAmines@yahoogroups.com, Shaun Moss <shaun@...> wrote:
>
> This looks great, guys, congratulations!
>
> I think it be worthwhile if you begin to collapse this information into
> a more standardized format such as a PDF document that people can
> dowload, or that you can email.  Also, it be a good idea to make a
> 20-minute power-point presentation describing the main features of your
> plan.  Then, if you feel ready, prepare a letter for potential investors
> and invite them to a presentation.  Ideally you would give the
> presentation in Europe as well as the US.
>
> Shaun
>
>
>
> Ueli Scheuermeier wrote:
> >
> >
> > Thanks a lot Jan for finalizing and uploading this.
> >
> > I believe with this Excel we now have a VERY powerful tool to show how
> > the various diverse things we're working on fit together. And it's not
> > a hewn in stone thing. That Excel will be our evolving map and game
> > plan. I can see it changing all the time, as and when we start digging
> > into the various "cells" or discovering and filling in new ones..
> >
> > This milestone was a long time coming. But I believe it's a really
> > good foundation.
> >
> > So: Now is the time to think about what we're going to work on next. I
> > suggest it should again be some nuts-and-bolts stuff nearer to home.
> >
> > I think it would be fun to go for that initial rack in LEO as a base
> > for our tugs, along with the mass-produced rockets (or their
> > alternatives) to throw stuff there. What do you think?
> >
> > Ueli
> >
> > --- On *Mon, 11/2/09, EOS Mars Program
> > /<eos.mars.program@...>/* wrote:
> >
> >
> >     From: EOS Mars Program <eos.mars.program@...>
> >     Subject: [NEAmines] Some NEAmines News for Today......
> >     To: NEAmines@yahoogroups.com
> >     Date: Monday, November 2, 2009, 10:06 PM
> >
> >
> >
> >     A completed stage one spreadsheet of the 'NEAmines Big Picture
> >     Evolutions' is now available online at:
> >
> >     http://www.asteroid mines.net/ documents/ BigPicture/
> >     <http://www.asteroidmines.net/documents/BigPicture/>
> >     BigPictureTable0911 01-WSP.xls
> >
> >     This should promptly download to desktop and then can be dragged onto
> >     Excel to launch. This has been given here as a weblink so it can be
> >     easily pasted into email for transmission beyond the group itself if
> >     required, as the file is now fairly large.
> >
> >     The cells are protected from editing in this issue, to maintain the
> >     published integrity of the milestone document, but please feel free
> >     to offer recommendations, additions, suggestions and particularly
> >     reference links (giving the relevant cell coordinates to which you
> >     wish to contribute), which we can then incorporate into future
> >     versions.
> >
> >     Please let me know if any dead links turn up. These all were tested
> >     and found to be still available from their third-party servers, so if
> >     any happen not to work despite all the checks, it is more likely to
> >     be an inadvertent error in the cell link setup which can be easily
> >     fixed.
> >
> >     Other comments can be directed to the NEA forum as usual, where the
> >     next milestone topic will soon be open for discussion.
> >
> >     Jan
> >
> >
>
> --
> Shaun Moss
> +61 405478912
> http://shaunmoss.id.au/
> http://ascensiontek.com/
> http://earthcalendar.info/
> http://moonmars.com/
>

Just to get this out of the way: Why do we want the rack - and later LEOstation
- to be orbiting in the equatorial plane?

1. Additional fling from Earths spin to reach orbital speed.
First of all, launching from the equator needs less power to reach orbital
speeds, because the Earths spinning adds a few thousand km/sec to the speed of
the vehicle if it climbs into orbit in an eastward direction. And that spin and
additional fling is biggest exactly at the equator. That's why all the launch
bases are always as near to the equator as possible (Florida for the US, Guyana
for the Europeans, Baikonur for the Sowjets, India with Sriharikotta, and more
recently China which is shifting south to its new base in Hainan).
However, near the equator a few hundred kilometers north or south doesn't matter
all that much, since Earths spin-radius increases only slightly when going
towards the equator.

2. Ease of navigation, launch windows
A much more important reason are the orbital planes. An orbit is a circle, and
that circle is on a plane that cuts through Earth's gravitational center and out
into space. When we launch a vehicle from - say - Cape Canaveral, then it first
heads due East over the Atlantic but soon heads south because it must travel in
a plane that cuts through Earths center. And once in orbit that vehicle will
always stay in exactly the same plane, while - looked at from outer space -
Earth spins on eastward. That's why satellites - viewed from Earth - come over a
few hundred or thousand kilometers to the west on their next orbit, even though
they actually stick to their orbit and Earth spins beneath them.
Now, let's launch a second vehicle a few hours later again from Canaveral. Again
the rocket heads due east and then south, and then climbs into orbit. But this
orbital plane is now different from that of the vehicle launched a few hours ago
because Earth moved on in the meantime. We end up with two orbital planes that
intersect in a straight line going through the center of Earth.

So how can we make sure that two vehicles in their separate orbits can actually
meet each other? We first have to make sure they are both in the same orbital
plane. And once they are in the same orbital plane we must boost them further
out or brake them further in until they meet up. How do we make sure they are in
the same orbital plane? There are two ways:
a. Wait for the launch of the second vehicle for 24 hours so it inserts into
orbit exactly 24 hours after the first vehicle. The penalty for this is that one
has very narrow launch windows.
b. Do a "dogleg" manoeuvre in orbit. This means kick the vehicle horizontally
sideways on its path when it hits the straight intersecting line between the two
orbital planes. This sideways kick makes it fly a "dogleg" from its original
orbital plane into that of the vehicle it needs to meet. And once it's done that
we need to change the altitude and all that so they meet. This dogleg has the
penalty of needing mass to use in boosters for doing the kick. Theoretically one
can over time dogleg an equatorial orbit (ie. over the equator) into a polar
orbit (ie one that flies over the poles). Here the two orbital planes are
perpendicular to each other. A 90 degree dogleg needs as much boosting energy as
it would to launch a vehicle into orbit. The logic is this: One has to brake the
speed along the equator down to zero, which is equivalent to sitting on the
surface, and replace it with speed over the poles, which is equivalent to
putting something into orbit.

Now, if our rack is orbiting in the equatorial plane, and the rockets are
launched from the equator, we don't have to worry about doglegs or launch
windows, and their penalties. What's more, all the stuff we launch would be
moving one behind the other, with small relative speeds to each other - and that
is going to be a relief for navigation and for worries about collisions.

Another issue is "circular" orbit. Our rack is proposed to be at 300km
"circular" orbit. That too helps a lot for navigation. (300km is about what the
space station is doing now, high enough to only worry every now and then about
atmospheric drag). A circular orbit is much easier to match up with than an
elliptical one.

So, am I tracking right here? I'm really just applying common sense here and
some high-school geometry. Those who know more about orbits could please come in
and okay this or please correct it.

Thanks
Ueli

--- In NEAmines@yahoogroups.com, "Ueli" <uscheuermeier@...> wrote:
>
> Here is what we have in cell 2.4 in our Big Picture:
> "Initial rack in LEO: This is a precursor to the water-depot cum base for the
tugs: A rack orbiting at 300 km circular exactly in the equatorial plane. The
rack starts with the following equipment:
> 1. Slots for water cans,
> 2. A grappling arm,
> 3. Robonaut
> 4. Intelligence unit
> 5. Solar power pack, possibly with flywheels instead of batteries or with fuel
cells
> First tugs bring water cans to the rack and wait there for missions, always
returning there for refuelling.
>
> Further elements are added in the following sequence:
> 1. Large water tank or balloon
> 2. Twiddler that can cooperate with grappler for assembling
> 3. Second grappler
> 4. Further slots for water cans
> 5. Outer skin of shield around the rack
> 6. Crush-zone of shield (inside the outer skin) made of collected junk
> The rack then develops further to "2.5 Operating Water Depot".
>
> Okay now, how will this rack look like? What are the specifications for it? I
think we need to first concentrate on the bare-bones absolute minimum for
operating one tug in order to be able to get a proof of technical and
operational concept. But this very first design needs to be such that it can be
continuously expanded to accomodate more tugs and operations and assembly etc.
>
> So, how does that very first rack in LEO 300km circular equatorial orbit look
like? What can it do?
>
> Ueli
>

So this is what we've written in cell 2.2 in the Big Picture:
"These rockets are mass-produced (and therefore cheap) and launched from the
equator. They are specifically designed for "cheap and dumb" payloads that do
not have to be insured (therefore again cheap), eg. cans of water, food,
construction materials, chemicals, etc. The rockets throw these payloads into
very low equatorial orbits that can be imprecise. This means the target orbit is
120km circular, but can wobble anywhere between 100km perigee and 300 km apogee.
These payloads will be picked up by orbital tugs and pushed to wherever they
need to go.
Initially many payloads will simply be cans of water for reaction mass for the
METs on the LEO tugs. These launches may target 300km circular.
Whatever of the rocket makes it into orbit will be as much as possible reusable
for construction and shielding in orbit."

Okay, now let's figure out these mass-produced rockets that are launched from
international waters on the equator. Of course there are many alternatives. I
think we should first concentrate on a classic rocket that will be built with
stuff coming off-the-shelf today. That will be our benchmark. Once we got that,
then we can explore alternatives, like piggy-backed rockets on planes, etc. or
even skyhooks. And then compare those alternatives to the benchmark.

So: How does that benchmark mass-produced rocket look like? What can it do?

Ueli

Here is what we have in cell 2.4 in our Big Picture:
"Initial rack in LEO: This is a precursor to the water-depot cum base for the
tugs: A rack orbiting at 300 km circular exactly in the equatorial plane. The
rack starts with the following equipment:
1. Slots for water cans,
2. A grappling arm,
3. Robonaut
4. Intelligence unit
5. Solar power pack, possibly with flywheels instead of batteries or with fuel
cells
First tugs bring water cans to the rack and wait there for missions, always
returning there for refuelling.

Further elements are added in the following sequence:
1. Large water tank or balloon
2. Twiddler that can cooperate with grappler for assembling
3. Second grappler
4. Further slots for water cans
5. Outer skin of shield around the rack
6. Crush-zone of shield (inside the outer skin) made of collected junk
The rack then develops further to "2.5 Operating Water Depot".

Okay now, how will this rack look like? What are the specifications for it? I
think we need to first concentrate on the bare-bones absolute minimum for
operating one tug in order to be able to get a proof of technical and
operational concept. But this very first design needs to be such that it can be
continuously expanded to accomodate more tugs and operations and assembly etc.

So, how does that very first rack in LEO 300km circular equatorial orbit look
like? What can it do?

Ueli

So this is what we've written in cell 2.1 in the Big Picture:
"Launch base on the equator: Rockets are launched from the equator for putting
payloads into equatorial orbit for pickup by tugs. Launch facilities are
operated on the equator, preferably in international waters, preferably movable
along the equator. Servicing possible from any harbor".

Question:
What are the specifics for this launch base? Any construction ideas? Any
operational issues?

Ueli

Hi all,

I'm offline and have trouble getting onto the net (travelling in rural East
Africa and my modem is broke). So no idea what you people are discussing in the
meantime. I'm uploading it at the first chance of getting bandwidth. Bear with
me if you've already gone past this....

Been thinking about the next milestone we could work on. So far we seem to agree
we should go back to nuts and bolts on stuff that is "early". So let's discuss
that first real income stream that is defined in column 2 of our Big Picture
table called "First rack in LEO with first LEO tugs". And it says "First income
streams from taxi services by LEO-tugs, selling water as reaction mass, and
space debris removal". Okay, so let's focus on that for a while.

The recent developments in NASA and with Ares indicate that delivery services in
LEO will be outsourced by the large government space agencies to the private
sector. Huh? Isn't that exactly what we're talking about here? Well, not quite,
because we're not aiming for delivery services to NASAs fickle projects but
rather building our own commercial foothold in space. Government operated
projects will be a neat client for our services, but if we want to depend on
them we might as well fold our laptops and stay on Earth.

However, in our commercial vision and work so far, I believe we have the
complexities of the required infrastructure and logistics covered: The elements
we've found so far that will have to contribute to achieving a first income
stream from space are:
2.1 Launch base on the equator
2.2 Mass-produced rockets to LEO (or alternatives available very soon).
2.3 Initial rack in LEO as a logistics base
2.4 Tugs operating in LEO (we have extensively explored this before, so I
suggest we leave this be for the time being).
2.5 Water depot in LEO (this too, I think we can leave out for the time being).

This leaves us with the interlinked challenges of
- launch base on the equator
- mass-produced rockets to LEO
- first rack as operational base for the tugs.

The three of them are so closely linked together, I believe we should work on
them simultaneously. And the result is indeed that working first rack in LEO. So
let's call this "First Rack".

Okay?
So I'll ask a trigger question on each of these three lines of exploration. Keep
in mind that we want to pick a low apple that can make enough money to break
even and at the same time provides us  a foothold that allows us to climb higher
up into the tree....

Cheers
Ueli

For the record, a close encounter of the mineral kind:

http://neo.jpl.nasa.gov/news/news166.html

http://www.cfa.harvard.edu/iau/lists/InnerPlot2.html

http://www.cfa.harvard.edu/iau/lists/MPLists.html

http://www.cfa.harvard.edu/iau/lists/OrbitDiagrams.html


Jan

Update on the expanding space debris issue:

http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2009/04/space-junk-forcing-more-
evasive-maneuvers/

http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2009/03/shuttledata/

http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2009/02/spacestuff/


Jan