Skip to content

Vulcan Heavy center core to orbit as a distributed launch tanker and wet lab

Vulcan Heavy center core to orbit as a distributed launch tanker and wet lab

(1)(A) The mission is a fully fueled ACES at Ice giant orbit insertion. This is done by the core stage as a or with a tanker to send ACES with an outer planet mission

(1)(B) the secondary mission is the core stage in orbit as a wet lab space station

(1)(C) The engine could be a vacuum engine or EVA could remove and recover it

 

 

Advertisements

Migration and tidally locked dark side of planets as refugium from Red Dwarf flaring

Migration and tidally locked dark side of planets as refugium from Red Dwarf flaring

 

Imagine you are a migratory ocean-going organism on a tidally locked planet around a red dwarf that flares

Your star is trying to kill you

assuming the flare does not destroy your atmosphere over time a tidally locked planets dark side could be a watery refugium. The Refugium would repopulate sunlit ocean with microorganisms and larger swimming Metazoans could migrate in and out of the dark and lit ocean areas

(your star has already killed you)

 

 

Venus Gateway space station and Observation platform

We propose that the  PPE SEP stage of the proposed Lunar Gateway be used to transport and provide power to a Venus Radar imaging mission. We want to also demonstrate a COTS commercial procurement for Venus science.

The Gateway PPE would carry a larger version of The Venus Emissivity Mapper (VEM)  and the PPE would be joined later by human-tended Gateway modules. Human tended Venus missions could allow a campaign of Venus CubeSats with Nanoracks deployment. The VOX mission’s Atmospheric Sample Vehicle would be based on the Cupid Arrow probe concept and turn could be deployed from the Venus Gateway. The Venus Gateway human-tended platform could host the proposed Sentinal NEO observer cameras.

The Venus Gateway is a HEOMD funded program the science instruments are SMD funded

 

 

Shuttle Imaging Radar-A

Shuttle Imaging Radar-B

Shuttle Radar Topography Mission (SRTM)

GEO Gateway space station

I am off the opinion that the ISS is best kept in orbit through 2032 and that as many COTS providers as possible benefit from it
The requirement should be those COTS providers should invest in that cislunar economy
(Boeing step up to the plate please)
Its the COTS folks who might make it to Mars we hope ISS could be an indirect subsidy for this

I was blogging the other night and the thought occurred to me that the Lunar Gateway is better located in GEO Its here that the most economic activity occurs and future economic activity is most likely to occur. Satellite servicing and a Cryogenic Zenon propellent depot would make sense as a human-tended outpost. How big can comsats be? The GEO gateway could demonstrate a very large EVA assembled Comsat

https://yellowdragonblog.com/2018/07/26/lunar-gateway-leo-distributed-anchor-tenant/

I think I need to write a blog entry just on the GEO gateway to further refine human GEO synergies perhaps satellite recovery and refurbishment AKA DARPA (Humans and robotics)

Lunar Gateway & LEO distributed anchor tenant space station fleet

Lunar gateway will most likely feature a competed SEP component (PPE)This could be used as an ISS re-boost stage and as an orbital element at Mars. Utilizing this SEP COTS could provide three providers with uses in dozens of locations

Long-term Storage of Cryogenic propellants provides another set of competitors

ISS should be a long-term project out to 2032 to serve as a COTS incubator.ISS it has been suggested is an LEO private space station incubator. Here is how we should do this;

The Lunar Gateway should be built with five copies. One in EML-1 The Second in a High Earth orbit with Lunar flyby to Mars orbit, the third prepositioned in Mars orbit.ISS modules its been suggested could be detached as Anchor tenants to private LEO stations. HEO gateway might enable easy COTS assembly. The ISS Truss will last forever so the ISS should be preserved or reused

Serial production of some components of the Lunar gateway purposed as Mars orbital elements and Mars transit vehicles is a goal here, use COTS to resupply the Mars orbital elements. At Mars, the resupply vehicle becomes a part of the space station.

We would need 5 initial SEP modules(Power and Propulsion Element (PPE) )

For;

(1)ISS (2)HEO (3)EML-1 (4)Mars transit (5)mars orbital This its hoped leads to SEP resupply as a COTS model

We need 5 inflatable modules (  Cislunar Habitation Module )

For;

(1)ISS (2)HEO (3)EML-1 (4)Mars transit (5)Mars orbital. This its hoped leads to inflatable resupply as a COTS model. ISS derived cargo resupply are also acceptable but not for the primary space station due to astronaut health. We need Volume to make this work as a Mars transit vehicle and Mars orbital outpost. We need more than 5 docking mechanisms for growth of these stations. Only three of the NextStep proposers are offering volume, Bigalow, Orbital/Dover and Independence-1

We need 5 Gateway Logistics Modules  and 5 Canada robotic arms for;

(1)ISS (2)HEO (3)EML-1 (4)Mars transit (5)Mars orbital. This is an international contribution but it is also an opportunity for Canada to establish serial production and pricing.

We need 5 Gateway Airlock Modules for;

(1)ISS (2) HEO (3) EML-1  (4)Mars transit (5)Mars orbital.

 

We have blogged before that most future SLS flights would be dedicated to the Skylab-II concepts. These involve transporting the propellant tank space station into LEO and then the SEP COTS providers. Gateway space stations in the inner solar system would be docked to these.

 

The NASA proposed Gateway is in the wrong orbit for a cost-effective reusable Lunar lander because gateway Delta-V is unfavorable and would lead to runaway mass and R&D costs. The EML-1 Gateway could have a Cryogenic Xenon fuel depot! This blog article assumes the Congress will never build a constellation class Lunar Lander, an SLS class Lunar lander would cost the same as the Orion or $15 Billion so we assume that the Mars Lunar goals are orbital outposts with Deimos and Phobos and perhaps Venus as extras

The goal is COTS resupply of 5 or more orbital outposts in the cislunar inner solar system and human-tended most are. The Mars orbital gateway would be human-tended for far longer periods of time

We need 5 cryogenic Xenon propellant depots for;

(1)ISS (2) HEO (3) EML-1  (4)Mars transit (5)Mars orbital.

We need 5 Nanoracks Independence-1 centaur space stations for;

(1)ISS (2) HEO (3) EML-1  (4)Mars transit (5)Mars orbital. We see synergy here between the Nanoracks Centaur and the (Power and Propulsion Element (PPE) ) The Nanoracks Centaur would bring itself and the PPE to HEO with a Lunar flyby the PPE would use SEP to get the stack the rest of the way “there” 

Some inclinations might allow a manifested   commercial cargo and the PPE with the Nanoracks centaur or an additional Gateway component or this concept;

Nanoracks Centaur burns to depletion, NDS, payload adapter, Gateway component, payload adapter, NDS, PPE, after depletion burn the PPE does a Transpositiondocking, and extraction with the stack.

 

EDIT 27 July 2018

GEO gateway with a large commercial comsat and a Xenon propellant depot, this is in support of Xenon resupply of commercial assets, This Gateway even more so then the ISS or any other Gateway holds the most promise for commercial activity. From this location, satellite repair and debris removal could be demonstrated.

Possibly rent is owed to this gateway from the fuel depot and the satellite resupply and refurbishment of commercial entities and the very large communication satellite demonstration project. Human tended GEO gateway could offer EVA services if that might be economically attractive? We suspect that a government or private astronaut is billing many different customers so EVA to assemble a very large communication satellite would pay for a portion of the astronauts trip.

 

 

Venus Gateway with Radar imager

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

San Francisco Solar/Wind/water Power and Light Corperation

San Francisco Solar/Wind/Water Power and Light Corporation

(A)(1) San Francisco would establish a self-funding corporation to build out a solar array and wind energy farms

(A(2) All city-funded buildings such as the nonprofits who provide housing, for example, would be required to accept city-owned power and water systems on the facade and rooftops. Rainwater and power would be sold to the grid

(A(3) Other city and local subdivisions would in place solar and water catchment systems that would be self-funding  (schools)

(B)(1) Legislation! the board of supervisors could require all recipients of city funding such as for housing to surrender their building facades and/or rooftops for rainwater catchment and solar and wind devices

(B)(2) Legislation! The Board of Supervisors would require all properties in escrow to be retrofitted with Solar power panels and rainwater recovery systems, the city power and light company would pay for and own the system if the owner opted out of paying for installation.

 

HUD/Vash Family choice home ownership to entreprenureship multifamily apartment business plan

ChapterLendersHanbookChapter7 (1)

 

Compliant and proposed court order to comply with federal housing law

 

California public benefit corporation & Leveraged ESOP low-income housing developer

ØThis PowerPoint builds on PowerPoints from 2010/11 that dealt with HUD/Vash homeownership and entrepreneurship

ØThis was one of my finalists to present to SC4 community college Speech and Entrepreneurship Honors classes

ØLater at UM-Flint I developed it later to embrace my spot on the Habitat for Humanity live/work home ownership wait list

ØHere in San Francisco the plan has been tweaked to become the bases for my proposal to the federal courts to set up a consent agreement with the city and the VA and  HUD to settle the HUD/Vash porting scandal and the failure to inspect and house HUD/Vash participants & the city and developers redlining of homeless vets out of home ownership opportunity’s

 

Our PDF document here:

 

HUD:Vash home ownership “San Francisco’s Inclusionary Housing Program

 

I Joined the @NCEO in 1984

ØLeveraged ESOP borrows funds to build senior & low-income multifamily apartments & hires contractors and subcontractors and leases those employees back to the same to do the work.

ØThe ESOP is related to a California public benefit corporation whose mission is to sell the units to HUD/Vash homeowners

ØSF San Francisco planning and home ownership departments realize that the lottery would not work well if the veteran is the homeowner

ØThe DOL through ERISA regulations does not allow an ESOP to own Real Estate holding company’s IE the Doorman and Housman could not own an apartment house. Recently, however, Hotels have set up ESOPs (SEIU Local 14)

ØIn this case the ESOP has built a property that is sold to the veteran’s utilizing the VA multifamily home loan system and does not own the property but might manage it

ØThe ESOP leverages its debt by selling mortgages to the veteran homeowner/landlord

A California public benefit ESOP Owned developer

ØThe ESOP pays down the leveraged debt with apartment sales to the HUD/Vash voucher holder and the dept becomes ESOP equity payable to the construction workers and developer staff

ØThe ESOP developer might be the realty management service provider to the building with is future cash flows

ØMortgages might be cash flows to the ESOP

ØThe HUD/Vash Vet also owns 1 or more market-rate apartment to rent out over 30 years of the life of the mortgage which is allowed under the VA multifamily loan program

ØMost likely the market rate apartment is held under a family or elder law trust to shield it from Bridge card & Medicaid & and SSI asset tests. Apartments owned with a Mortgage are not assets(yet)

ØThis program would be a long-term(30 years) plan to end poverty to veterans and their descendants

Is the city of San Francisco redlining? Statistical data says yes they are

Ø“San Francisco’s Inclusionary Housing Program requires new residential projects of 10 or more units to pay an Affordable Housing Fee, or meet the inclusionary requirement by providing a percentage of the units as “below market rate” (BMR) units at a price that is affordable to low or middle income households, either “on-site” within the project, or “off-site” at another location in the City”

ØHow to redline the class of homeless people and veterans out of the mayor’s homeownership opportunity’s & how to use the Planning commission to further redline this class?

ØCan HUD inspection of noncompliant SRO’s rent only units be used to satisfy the off-site BMR units required by “San Francisco’s Inclusionary Housing Program”?

ØThe nonprofit SRO slumlord master lease can never be a base for home ownership and there an economic incentive for these nonprofits to forcibly keep our section 8 money in their accounts

San Francisco runs a multijurisdictional housing Exclusionary program

ØStart with the Mayor’s homeless department that tells meeting attendees that HUD/Vash will permanently bar porting of housing choice vouchers.

ØForce vets in the city with vouchers into substandard unpermitted housing with fraudulent housing inspections by the housing authority & HUD/Vash(city attorney vs Wue)

ØWe set up a mayors homeownership program that uses rules to exclude self-identified vets from owning their own low-income apartments (lottery) & bar them from owning Market rate apartments as a future retirement fund, we do this because our campaign donors are the Nonprofits that now own most low-income housing.

ØWe set up minimum AMI rents that keep out the SRO folks from the tenderloin.

 

San Francisco steals HUD/Vash housing choice vouchers

ØCity College homeless students program directors and staff have been in attendance at city homeless department meetings for years and are witness to its request to never allow a HUD/Vash voucher to be ported into the city

ØHUD/Vash claims no one has ported a voucher into the city in the last 6 years, we have learned the above in the last 5 months

ØThis is a violation of Shapiro VS Thompson Supreme court ruling prohibiting rules by the government to take any public benefit and to prohibit travel by any citizen

ØWe claims that this is a Federal Tort and social worker malpractice claim in the amount of $450 Million against the VA.

ØWE claim HUD has failed to properly supervise the SF housing authority in inspecting units ( the Ms. WU case and the SRO case)

ØWe claim that HUD and The VA have failed to properly supervise the rights of VA multifamily home loan and HUD/Vash rights to homeownership in the city where the city and housing authority fail to enforce  them

ØThe planning commissions lottery and the housing commissions privatizing public housing would be examples of ways to thwart a porting right.

  • In the next 10 years, the city pays into a trust fund $ 90 Million that can only be used by 800 individuals who are HUD/Vash recipients to pay $100,000 each for a VA multifamily apartment(down payment) (San Francisco settlement)
  • The Housing authority under a federal supervision will port all vouchers and will facilitate home ownership using HUD/Vash vouchers to all of the 800 + plaintiffs
  • Over the next 10 years, the San Francisco housing authority will pay into a trust fund public housing lands and buildings to build vet owned mixed-use housing

800 HUD/Vash vouchers; economic impact of homeownership

Ø800 X $600,000 = $480 Million worth of Mortgages

ØTwo Market rate apartments per veteran landlord, $960 Million plus the occupied units above equals  $1,114 Million

ØUnder city rules the vets would be entitled to additional market-rate apartments do to oversubscribing  the below-market percentages of new builds so 800 vets would own 4 to 5 apartments each through time

Ø800 veteran landlords X 5 apartments each at market rates equals 4000 market rate apartments so we propose a judicial consent agreement to place all vet owned buildings into a special tax district

ØHow many Veterans live with regular HUD vouchers or in public housing? Our legal compliant extends to them as well as in they are given no choices but to live in a LIHTC building and forced to give up VA benefits

2012-7081 HUD/Vash porting regulation

2017_Payment_Standard_Revised_Website-1 How much a HUD/Vash is worth

VI-SPDAT-2.0-Single-Adults The city and the VA violate the law by using the VI SPDAT instead of the porting regulations

144_HUD-VASH_Book_WEB_High_Res_final VA HUD/Vash social workers even violate their own practice handbook

HUD-VASH Handbook updated Aug. 2016

vash-bestpractices

2017 AMI-PurchaseCalcs-SFOnly_04-21-17_0 (1)

6983-Inclusionary Procedures Manual 051013

 

In the summer of 2016 the HUD

The right to freedom of movement and keep your social welfare benefits

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shapiro_v._Thompson

https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=6690948768913204766

Contrast with the HUD/Vash porting rules

https://www.hud.gov/program_offices/public_indian_housing/programs/hcv/portability

These are the special HUD/Vash porting rules

https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2012-03-23/pdf/2012-7081.pdf

 

The rules of the city of San Francisco conflict with federal VA home loan guidelines, the city requires a lottery for these apartments

http://sfmohcd.org/inclusionary-housing-program

The VA multifamily lending rules say we must the owner occupy

So 5 vets  together is a 14 unit apartment building

https://www.benefits.va.gov/WARMS/docs/…/ChapterLendersHanbookChapter7.pdf

https://www.benefits.va.gov/WARMS/docs/…/ChapterLendersHanbookChapter7.pdf

 

So vets are not allowed to do this in San Francisco in violation of 5 federal housing discrimination laws and our rights to use the VA home loan and educational benefits

Vets forced to live in LITCD buildings where VA benefits must be surrendered, this is the project list

projects 2

The ban on full-time students means that you can not have education as your goal for CWT, GI bill or Voc rehab

We try to engage this topic with social media

13 October 2018

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Maple Syrup reverse Osmoses feed to honeybees for processing into a novel honey product

These were my community college entrepreneurship and speech class honors projects from 2012/13

 

Sugar maple sap honey bee experiment (1) (2015_01_04 16_01_55 UTC)

 

An urban maple sap business, a cogeneration-2

 

district ground sourced geothermal systems under city streets

 

geothermal-speech (2015_01_04 16_01_55 UTC)

 

 

High O2 late Carboniferous insect museum terrarium experiment exhibit

High O2 late Carboniferous insect museum terrarium experiment exhibit

(A)(1) would be about 15 meters long to allow The natural history museum to have visitors access.

(A)(2) The other side of the exhibit would have access doors to maintain the exhibit over time

(A)(3) The exhibit shall be called the “High O2 late Carboniferous insect Terrarium” and the experiment would be to have an enclosed ecosystem with insects of many species and to see over many decades if the insect populations respond by evolving gigantism! If the experiment paid off with say very large Dragonflies in a decade then this could become one of the worlds most visited exhibits! This is also an experiment so if the results do not produce an influx of visitors then we still gain knowledge.

Birds altered Insect Gigantism during high O2 events

High O2 levels effects in fruit flys

http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0011701

(A)(4) My fee for design and layout of the exhibit is $ 1 million paid out over 10 to 15 years(5) If something truly exciting develops over that 10 to 15 years that brings in a major influx of natural history museum visitors with an impact at the ticket sales box office then we would want a schedule of fee sharing ( 5 % ?)

 

 

 

Bay Area Recovered Water Funded Pumped storage Agency (BARWF PSA)

So let’s examine the idea San Francisco creates 80 Million gallons of treated water, The other bay area communities generate (placeholder) generate more. 80 MGD

Fig25_WWTP_SF

sanitary_district (1)

The North San Mateo County Sanitation District 8 MGD dry season 25 MGD wet season

Order R2-2006-0068final (1)

 

Sewer Authority Mid-Coastside (SAM) 2 MGD

R2-1998-0125

Silicon Valley Clean Water 108 MGD

ES1106206-ES864656-ES1265768

Regional Water Quality Control Plant (Palo Alto) 39 MGD

R2-2014-0024

WWTP | Clean Water Program San Mateo 60 MGD

City of San Mateo SSMP 2015

San Francisco Public Utilities Commission  80 MGD

 

SEP Plant – ssip_factsheet_treatmentfacilities_SEP_hh_061614

 

 

 

Our grand plan is that the wastewater would be sent uphill locally in San Francisco in the early hours of the Morning and that this water would generate power during peak hours. Local water after its generated power would recharge groundwater and indirectly recharge the local waste reservoirs. Some of the local treated wastewater could recharge San Francisco creeks. It should be mentioned that San Francisco local creeks where seasonal so that the greater pumped storage project might be required.

Most of the Regionals wastewater would be pumped uphill to storage facilities that would discharge into the drinking water reservoir system after flowing through the power generator this would not be local water but  all of our treated wastewater discharged into the San Andreas, crystal springs reservoir and the Pilersitos  reservoir

 

We wish to study treated wastewater from those members of the BAWSCA who are a part of the BAWSCA freshwater projects. A pump storage wastewater storage project means that the member organizations have an indirect fresh water supply. Traditional pumped storage facilities involve billions of dollars in reservoirs at high elevations but current battery storage technologies would eliminate this leaving only the piping systems and due to lack of a purpose-built reservoir a much smaller turbine

The water instead would flow to freshwater reservoirs already built and to stream restoration and groundwater recharge. treated water would be pumped uphill all day except for during peak power periods and the Telsa Giga battery would sell power during peak period prices. The system should pay for itself with power sales and reuse 200 Million gallons a day of treated wastewater delivered to the existing bay area water reservoirs. 

It also makes sense for the 200 Million gallons a day to be pumped uphill utilizing solar and wind power.

The original wastewater pumped storage post is here  Bay Area Recovered Water Funded Pumped storage Agency (BARWF PSA) SpaceX propellent tanks mass produced as shipboard water and LNG Build the ships at NASSCO shipyards in San Diego!

 

As a reference, Raccoon Mountain pumped storage project built and operated by the TVA has 107 Million gallons that produce 1,632 megawatts San Francisco Bay Area might represent 3,260 megawatts produced and stored in batteries

 

 

 

SystemMap_updated-092016

 

2016 State of Regional Water System Report_Final_Sept 2016

 

 

2015-16 BAWSCA Audited Financial Statements – CALLP Final

 

summ_rpt_ch3 (1)

 

District_Map

 

 

 

 

%d bloggers like this: