XPost: misc.misc   
   From: smithm@SPAMBLOCKnetapps.com.au.retro.com   
      
   On Sun, 12 Dec 2004 00:33:28 +0000 (UTC)   
   "Kent Paul Dolan"  wrote:   
      
   [snip]   
      
   > The main advantages I can see is that it is already a   
   > known-to-be-functional long time habitat for humans,   
   > and that it is a huge amount of mass already much of   
   > the way out of the gravity Earth's well.   
      
   Still about 3km/s away from escape velocity, though.   
      
   > But, is it strong enough to survive being shoved?   
      
   Given the low level of thrust available from high ISP engines? Yes, certainly.   
   It is routinely reboosted by small chemical rocket motors with more thrust   
   than ion drive systems.   
      
   > Is it reliable enough not to need the possibility of   
   > a quick rescue everytime someone miscalculates the   
   > inhabitant's appetites?   
      
   Probably. It is certainly the best spacecraft available for the job.   
      
   > Consider also building up from the present   
   > capability to include such needed stuff as   
   > self-sufficient hydroponics and full waste   
   > recycling, with a long term _intention_ of shoving   
   > the whole mess, once it can serve, as a planet to   
   > planet "wanderer" (pun very much intended).   
      
   Given an initial impulse, the answer would be ...maybe. ISS is still pretty   
   immature technology. Like Mir it will wear out pretty fast. It might only last   
   long enough for one return trip to Mars.   
      
   > Mars need not be the final destination, either, it   
   > could just be a staging and fuel / propulsive mass   
   > replenishing waystation to Europa or Titan, say, or   
   > a dropoff point for one research staff of several,   
   > with eventual pickup and return intended for all.   
      
   I don't think this is doable. You might want to read "Titan" by Stephen Baxter   
   which postulates a flight to Titan with current technology.   
      
   I think the real problem with this idea is that chemical engines are too hard   
   to deliver to the orbit of ISS, and ion drive engines don't have enough   
   impulse to do the job with the available power supply. On the way out the   
   spacecraft would have to make    
   repeated passes through the Van Allen belts, which is bad in the long term for   
   electronics and probably very bad for any crew.   
      
   If you started with a proper nuclear reactor, and a larger than normal ion   
   drive would that do the trick? I am not sure, myself.   
   --   
   Michael Smith   
   Network Applications   
   www.netapps.com.au   | +61 (0) 416 062 898   
   Web Hosting          | Internet Services   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)