Showing posts with label Russia. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Russia. Show all posts
Wednesday, August 19, 2026
Thursday, May 29, 2025
ESA and Ending the War in Ukraine
Ukraine will never be truly safe from Russian aggression unless its under the nuclear umbrella of a friendly nation or nations. Unfortunately, that can't be the US since Trump initially called Putin's invasion of Ukraine "Genius!" while continuing to exhibit hostility towards Ukraine.
So Ukraine will need security guarantees from Britain and France who are both nuclear armed nations.
France, the UK, and Germany also need to immediately send in 1000 troops each to protect the three nuclear power plants in Ukraine still under Ukrainian control. For the environmental safety of Europe and for Russia, these nuclear facilities need to be protected-- non war zones.
The UK and Europe also need to immediately start releasing $10 billion a month of Russian assets under their control to Ukraine until Russia returns all kidnapped Ukrainian children and returns all Ukrainian territory-- including Crimea-- and stops bombing Ukrainian territory. This will allow Ukraine to easily by arms from the Europe, the US, Canada, and other friendly nations.
Europe and the UK also need to start integrating Ukraine into various European organizations before finally admitting Ukraine to the EU.
ESA (the European Space Agency) should be the first agency to admit Ukraine as a member, IMO. Ukraine has a long history of experience with launching and developing space rockets including such ventures as the Sea Launch program.
But ESA should insist that Ukraine pay $5 billion a year to be part of the space agency for at least the next ten years. This will help ESA finance a European Starlink service launched from French Guiana. France could also make a deal with Ukraine, to supply Ukraine with nuclear submarines France originally wanted to supply to Australia before Australia decided to get them instead from the US.
Ukraine is a nation of nearly 40 million people that feeds more than 400 million people around the world. So Ukraine will need a strong navy to protect its territory and its cargo ships needed to feed the world's hungry.
Links and References
Why Australia wanted out of its French submarine deal
Nuclear Power in Ukraine
Tuesday, March 11, 2025
Friday, June 30, 2023
Wednesday, May 18, 2022
Monday, March 7, 2022
Thursday, June 17, 2021
Friday, December 4, 2020
Growing Tensions Amongst Russia, China, and Japan over Vladivostok and the Kuril Islands
 |
| Vladivostok & Kuril Islands |
Sunday, June 28, 2020
Tuesday, May 16, 2017
Practical Timelines and Funding for Establishing Permanent Outpost on the Moon and Mars using Propellant Producing Water Depots and SLS and Commercial Launch Capability (Part I)
 |
| Two SLS launch vehicles with 10 meter payload fairings. The vehicle to the left will be able to deploy at least 70 tonnes of payload to LEO. The vehicle to the right with its EUS upper stage will be able to deploy up to 105 tonnes to orbit (Credit NASA). |
by Marcel F. Williams
Part 1: NASA & the DOD
Establishing a permanent human presence on the surface of the Moon is the most expedient and economical way to eventually establish a similar permanent human presence on the surface of Mars. But as long as NASA continues to spend $3 to $4 billion a year on its big LEO program (the ISS), it is doubtful that the American space agency can adequately fund its beyond LEO efforts-- without a significant increase in its annual human spaceflight related budget.
So under this scenario, the ISS program is continued. But starting in 2019, an additional $3 billion is added to NASA's human spaceflight related budget by the DOD (Department of Defense). In exchange, NASA will be committed towards eventually deploying microgravity and artificial gravity habitats, and lunar and martian surface outpost for the exclusive use and occupation by DOD personal. And such habitats will be derived from similar habitats used my NASA or the private space industries.
Under this scenario, DOD funding would also require NASA to provide military astronauts with access to LEO through private commercial spacecraft and to its beyond LEO habitats either through NASA or private spacecraft.
So for less than 0.6% ($3 billion) of the annual DOD budget, the ISS program and NASA's beyond LEO program could both be adequately funded while also enabling DOD personal to have a permanent strategic presence within cis-lunar space and eventually on the surfaces of the Moon and Mars.
Private American commercial space companies and their astronauts and paying customers will soon be joining NASA and foreign space agency personal in the New Frontier. So it will be important for US companies to know that their investments, hired personal, and their paying customers will be protected from possible intimidation and coercion from foreign governments and other hostile organizations.
The DODs role in space would, therefore, be similar to the role that the US Coast Guard has in America's territorial waters on Earth. And this should prevent private companies from having to spend money developing their own private space defense forces in order to protect their property and personal in space from the potential hostile interest from potentially hostile strategic competitors such as China and Russia.
 |
| Positions of the Earth-Moon Lagrange Points (Credit: Maccone) |
A DOD Earth-Moon Lagrange point presence at EML3, EML4, and EML5 would allow the US military to deposit, protect, and to quickly deploy backup satellites in case US satellites of strategic importance are seriously damaged by terrorist or a hostile foreign power.
DOD habitats could also be a place for emergency refuge and medical treatment for DOD and NASA astronauts, personal and customers from private space agencies, and for personal from foreign space agencies. So the first extraterrestrial sickbays and hospitals in the New Frontier might be operated by the DOD. So military physicians and nurses might be an important part of the military personal deployed to all extraterrestrial habitats under the control of the DOD.
In 2018, Russia intends to charge NASA $81 million for each NASA astronaut transported too and from the ISS aboard Russian launch vehicles and spacecraft. Additional funding for NASA's beyond LEO efforts could also come from charging foreign space agencies $150 million for each foreign astronaut participating in a NASA beyond LEO mission. This could save NASA at least $150 million or more, depending on how many foreign astronauts are allowed to participate in a beyond LEO mission. NASA could also allow foreign astronauts participating in a mission to the Moon or Mars to eventually return to the Earth with up to 10 kilograms of material retrieved from the lunar or martian surface for their own space agency's (an absolute bargain) that also helps to reduce NASA's recurring cost for human missions.
Part II of this article (The Moon)
Marcel F. Williams
Links and References
The Case for a US Miltary Presence at LEO and Beyond
Declassified: U.S. Military's Secret Cold War Space Project Revealed (Newly released documents describe the U.S. Air Force's secret cold war project known as the Manned Orbiting Laboratory)
LUNEXNASA is paying Russia more than $70 million to bring an astronaut home in this spaceship tonight
Sunday, May 7, 2017
Floating Nuclear Power Plants, Floating Power Barges, and Marine Methanol
Links and References
Using Small Nuclear Reactors for Navy Synfuel Production
Will Russia and China Dominate Ocean Nuclear Technology?
The Production and Utilization of Renewable Methanol in a Nuclear Economy
Stena Line to Convert Passenger Ferry to a Methanol Fueled Sea Vessel
MIT Floating Nuclear Power Plant Design
Naval Research Laboratory Explains their Nuclear Synfuel from Seawater Technology
The Future of Ocean Nuclear Synfuel Production
Nuclear Navy's Synfuel from Seawater Program: An interview with Kathy Lewis of the U.S. Naval Research Laboratory
Friday, April 28, 2017
Tuesday, March 1, 2016
The Case for a US Military Presence at LEO and Beyond
 |
| Artist rendition of military operated MOL space lab (Credit: NASA) |
On January 31, 1958, the US Army launched America's first satellite into orbit. That was nearly four months after the Soviet Union became the first nation to place a satellite (Sputnik) into Earth orbit and nearly two months after the failed US Navy attempt to launch a satellite into orbit aboard the Vanguard rocket.
The Soviet's launch of Sputnik had suddenly turned science fiction into reality. And with the perceived threat of possible Soviet dominion over the rest of the solar system, the US Army, Navy, and Air Force appeared to be on their way towards the rapid development of their own individual unmanned and manned space programs in order to counter the growing threat of communism during the Cold War.
In 1958, the US Air Force conceived plans for its own lunar missions, the Lunex Project, with crewed missions to the lunar surface scheduled for 1967 and an underground military base by 1968.
 |
| Diagram of the US Air Force Lunex lunar lander (Credit: US Air Force) |
In 1959, the head of the US Army's ABMA, Wernher von Braun, appointed Heinz-Hermann Koelle to head Project Horizon, a program to study the feasibility of deploying a scientific and military base on the Moon by 1966. During the same period, the US Navy also conceived a plan to place naval personal on the lunar surface by 1967.
The US Air Force also funded a space plane program, Dyna-Soar, from 1957 until it was cancelled in 1963 at total cost of over $5 billion in today's dollars. The single manned space plane was to be used for space rescue, bombing, aerial reconnaissance, and even as an anti-satellite weapon.
Most of the military efforts for an aggressive manned space program, however, was thwarted on July 29, 1958, when President Eisenhower signed the National Aeronautics and Space Act which established NASA and transferring 8000 employees from the NACA(National Advisory Committee for Aeronautics) which included Langley Aeronautical Laboratory, Ames Aeronautical Laboratory, and Lewis Flight Propulsion Laboratory. Elements of the Army Ballistic Missile Agency (ABMA) including Wernher von Braun and his team were also incorporated into NASA. NASA also incorporated the United States Naval Research Laboratory and gained control of the Army's Jet Propulsion Laboratory in California.
Still the US Air Force Dyna-Soar program was succeeded by another program in 1963 called MOL (Manned Orbiting Laboratory), a 3 meter in diameter 22 meter long crewed military space station that was to be placed in a polar orbit for reconnaissance. The Nixon administration cancelled the Air Force program in June of 1969, just a few years before it was to be deployed, favoring NASA's Skylab program as temporary successor to the end of Apollo.
But a new space age is now approaching: an age where private American commercial companies will begin to launch private citizens and astronauts from government agencies into Earth orbit and possibly beyond. So it will be extremely important for private US companies to know that their investments in space and their hired personal in space will be protected by the US government from intimidation and coercion from foreign powers in space. So a permanent US military presence will still be required for the protection of US assets within cis-lunar space, and for search and rescue efforts, and for general law enforcement in space.
The US military role within cis-lunar space should, therefore, be similar to the role that the US Coast Guard has in American territorial waters on Earth. Otherwise, private companies will be forced to develop their own private military forces in order to protect their personal and their property from potential hostile foreign interest and possibly even commercial competitors who might be willing to use force in order to gain economic advantages in the New Frontier. So its clearly time for the US Department of Defense to establish a permanent military presence within cis-lunar space and eventually on the surfaces of the Moon an Mars in order to secure the peaceful flow of commerce in the New Frontier while also protecting the security of American citizens that will be living and working there.
 |
| Artist rendition of an orbiting DOD space station composed of a Bigelow BA-330 module plus two Orbital ATK Cygnus module. A Boeing CST-100 Starliner is docked with the station while being inspected for departure by two FlexCraft vehicles. A DreamChaser space plane approaches the space station from the distance carrying a replacement crew of six military astronauts. |
The International Space Station (ISS) has so far required over 30 launches to assemble the orbiting platform. However, a DOD habitat used to house six military personal should only require one to three launches. The BA-330 manufactured by Bigelow Aerospace can house as many as six astronauts, providing 330 cubic meters of pressurized volume. The 20 tonne habitat plus a Cygnus derived two tonne node could be deployed by the ULA's Delta IV heavy or by Space X's Falcon Heavy which is scheduled for its first test flights in 2016 and its first commercial launches in 2017.
 |
| FlexCraft vehicle (Credit: NASA) |
Additional habitat space plus FlexCraft vehicles for EVA's could be provided by adding Orbital ATK's Cygnus modules to the DOD habitat. These modules are over 3 meters in diameter and up to 7.5 meters long. Two such modules plus a Cygnus derived node, weighing less than ten tonnes in total , could be deployed to orbit with the single launch of a ULA Atlas V, Delta IV, or its future Vulcan rocket or a single launch from a Falcon 9 (Space X). And additional launch could provide the DOD space station with a total of four Cygnus habitat modules to be berthed with the BA-330 module. However, with a 7.2 meter fairing diameter, a future Vulcan Heavy rocket might be able to deploy the entire BA-330/Cygnus facility with a single launch.
Once the Space Launch System is fully operational by the mid 2020's, much larger and cheaper habitats and possibly even rotating artificial gravity habitats could be deployed for the DOD at LEO.
 |
| Artist rendition of an SLS propellant tank derived habitat, a 23 tonne module (dry weight) with more than 500 m3 of habitable volume (Credit: NASA) |
1. The training of Air Force, Navy, Marine, and Army personal, giving these DOD astronauts launching and landing experience, microgravity experience aboard the pressurized habitat for up to 60 days, pressure suit experience during EVAs, and FlexCraft training during EVAs.
2. The training of NASA personal, giving new NASA astronauts launching and landing experience, microgravity experience aboard the space habitat for up to 60 days, pressure suit experience during EVAs, and FlexCraft training during EVAs. This will be especially important after the ISS program ends in 2024. Since NASA beyond LEO missions are not likely to require more than one crewed launch per year, this would allow other NASA astronauts to get some experience and training in space before they're time to participate in a beyond LEO mission comes around.
3. Refuge for American and foreign astronauts in other spacecraft in case there is a major solar storm. The 46 cm thick walls of the BA-330 should be thick enough to protect astronauts from major solar events. Adding 30 cm of internal insulation within the Cygnus modules should also be enough to protect astronauts from major solar storms.
4. Refuge for American and foreign astronauts in other spacecraft in case their spacecraft has a serious malfunction that doesn't allow them to return safely to the Earth
5. For medical treatment for injured American and foreign astronauts, at least two military physicians will be on board the DOD habitat. Medical treatment at LEO will, of course, be greatly enhanced once rotating artificial gravity habitats are deployed.
6. Servicing malfunctioning military satellites. This may require the deployment of reusable vehicles and propellant depots.
7. Search and rescue missions practically anywhere within cis-lunar space , perhaps using an Orion capsule and a reusable ACES 41 booster after the deployment of LEO orbiting propellant depots. The US Air Force has recently decided to provide funding to the ULA for the development of the ACES 41.
8. NASA astronaut stop overs on beyond LEO missions using propellant depots and back from beyond LEO missions for eventual return to the Earth's surface.
9. The temporary jailing or isolation of individual or individuals who may have serious psychological problems or who may have committed serious crimes or an individual or individuals who may have some sort of contagious disease.
 |
| Orion space capsule joined with an ACES 41 vehicle (Credit: ULA) |
With such funding, however, the DOD could easily employ private launch companies to deploy six military astronauts to the DOD orbital facility every month for a 30 to 60 day stay. For national security purposes, the DOD might simply purchase reusable spacecraft such as the Dragon (Space X), Starliner (Boeing Aerospace), and the DreamChaser (Sierra Nevada) with military personal piloting and landing the vehicles themselves. Twelve military crew launches per year should also greatly enhance the economic stability of the emerging American Commercial Crew launch companies.
However, thirty to sixty day stays in a microgravity environment may preclude military astronauts older than 40 years of age from participating in the program because of the serious visual problems associated with astronauts 45 to 55 years of age during long periods in microgravity environments. Astronauts older than 40 might eventually be included in long DOD orbital missions once simple rotating artificial gravity habitats start to be deployed by heavy lift vehicles.
Marcel F. Williams
Declassified: U.S. Military's Secret Cold War Space Project Revealed
Congress Requires NASA to Develop a Deep Space Habitat
Tuesday, February 9, 2016
Will Russia and China Dominate Ocean Nuclear Technology?
 |
| Chinese floating nuclear power station (Credit: China General Nuclear Corporation) |
by Marcel F. Williams
Today, more than 180 small nuclear reactors power more than 140 sea vessels (submarines, aircraft carriers, and icebreakers) on the Earth's oceans. Nuclear power plants have been cruising the high seas since the United States Navy first deployed the USS Nautilus, the world's first nuclear submarine, in 1955. More than 12,000 reactor years of operation in the marine environment has been accumulated from floating nuclear reactors since the 1950's. Although originally designed for naval use, the US Army operated Pressurized Water Reactors from 1954 until 1974. But the success of the Navy's Pressurized Water Reactors eventually led to the first commercial nuclear reactors in the US.
Six countries, the United States, Russia, France, the United Kingdom, People's Republic of China, and India, currently deploy some form of strategic floating nuclear-powered vessel. And other countries, such as Argentina and Brazil have ongoing projects to build strategic nuclear-powered submarines.
 |
| Russian Typhoon Class Nuclear Submarine |
 |
| The American USS Enterprise and the French Charles de Gaulle nuclear aircraft carriers. |
Since the early 2000s, the Russian Federation has been working on the deployment of centrally mass produced floating nuclear power plants. With operating lifespans of 40 years, these floating nuclear barges are to be designed to produce 70 MW of electricity or 300 MW. While these floating nuclear power plants are initially designed to be used in the Russian Arctic regions, Rosatom, the State Atomic Energy Corporation, has reported that nations such as: China, Indonesia, Malaysia, Algeria, Namibia, Argentina, and Cape Verde have shown interest in such floating reactors.
 |
| Artist rendition of future Russian floating nuclear power station |
Now Chinese nuclear company, CGN (China General Nuclear), has announced that its ACPR50S reactor design has received approval by China's National Development and Reform Commission.
The construction of CGNs first floating reactor is expected to start in 2017, with electricity generation to begin in 2020. The reactor is being developed in order to supply 60 MW of electricity or 200 MW of heat for desalination.
In October of 2015, Lloyd's Register of the UK announced it had signed a framework agreement with a subsidiary of China National Nuclear Corporation (CNNC) - to support the design and development of a floating nuclear power plant based on a 100 MWe design.
But the United States is actually no stranger to floating nuclear power production. A US Antarctic base was powered by a 1.5 MWe marine reactor from 1961 until 1972. From 1967 until 1976, a 12,000 tonne ship that was originally built in 1945 was used as a floating nuclear power plant, supplying power on Gatun Lake in the Panama Canal Zone. The ship supplied 10 MWe of electricity for the Canal Zone for nine years.
44% of the world's population lives within 150 kilometers of marine coastlines. In a world facing the dangers of global sea rise and ocean acidification due to the use of fossil fuels, centrally mass produced floating nuclear power plants could easily be deployed near coastal towns and cities around the world to produce carbon neutral electricity. And there is enough uranium in seawater to meet all of the world's energy needs for more than three thousand years (more than 5000 years if the spent fuel is reutilized). The use of thorium could add another 2800 years.
Floating nuclear power plants also have the safety advantage of not being vulnerable to earthquakes or tsunamis. Additionally, the endless heat sink of the ocean environment would make nuclear meltdowns impossible.
 |
| US Navy modular floating platform concept (Credit: US Navy) |
However, potential terrorist attacks on such facilities is likely to stoke some degree of nuclear phobia amongst the populace-- even though such an attacks are unlikely to cause any significant environmental damage. The political consequences, however, could have significant economic consequences for the nuclear industry.
Protection of a floating nuclear facility could be significantly enhanced by surrounding them with enormous floating tubular cement modules such as those proposed by the US Navy for constructing ocean aircraft platforms and artificial islands. Each floating cement module for the naval platforms were supposed to be 20 meters in diameter an nearly 80 meters tall! And each floating module could be assembled in a variety of configurations. The assemblage of such statuesque structures could enhance the protection of floating nuclear power plants both above and the below the water.
But nuclear phobic anxieties could be further reduced by simply moving floating nuclear facilities out of the visual range of the coastline. Most proposed floating nuclear facilities are usually positioned just 10 to 20 kilometers off the coast. But the relatively low cost of submarine cables could make the largest ocean nuclear power facilities (1000 MWe plus) economically viable even if they were located a 1000 kilometers away from the coastline. Less than 300 kilometer off the coast would be well within a nations economic exclusion zone.
On the other hand, floating nuclear power plants wouldn't have to be near any coastline if they were simply used to produce synthetic carbon neutral fuels. Far out to sea, floating nuclear power plants could utilized to produce carbon neutral: methanol, gasoline, diesel fuel, jet fuel, and dimethyl ether. These synthetic fuels could be produced through the pyrolysis of garbage and sewage imported from coastal towns and cities. The syngas produced from the pyrolysis of the biowaste and plastics could then be converted into a variety of synthetic fuels. But the production of synfuels could be greatly enhanced by adding hydrogen to the syngas produced through the electrolysis of seawater.
However, the US Navy has recently developed a technology that could produce carbon neutral synthetic fuels by solely using electricity and seawater, taking advantage of the high levels of carbon naturally present in seawater.
Methanol produced at sea could be shipped by tanker to coastal cities for the production of electricity while the gasoline, diesel fuel, and jet fuel produced at sea could be shipped to coastal cities for use in automobiles, trucks, and aircraft.
 |
| MIT's floating nuclear power plant concept (Credit: MIT) |
While there are good economic reasons for the US to invest in floating nuclear power plants, the US Navy, for more than a decade, has expressed a desire to switch from fossil fuels to carbon neutral synthetic fuels for both environmental and strategic reasons. The US Navy's desire for ocean nuclear synfuels could be the means to get an Ocean Nuclear industry started in America.
Through the urging of the DOD and the US Navy, Congress could pass a law offering funding to private US and allied industries to develop floating nuclear power plants ranging from 100 MWe up to 2500 MWe for the production of carbon neutral aviation fuels and other carbon neutral synthetic fuels for the US armed forces. The US Navy could agree to purchase carbon neutral jet fuel from floating nuclear facilities for all of its liquid fuel needs once such carbon neutral fuels are available.
Such legislation could help the US Navy meet its environmental and strategic goals while also helping to develop a new carbon neutral synthetic fuel industry, the way the US Navy helped to develop the nuclear industry back in the 1950s.
Marcel F. Williams
New Papyrus Magazine
Links and References
Nuclear-Powered Ships
A new look for nuclear power
Russian floating nuclear power station
CGN to build floating reactor
CNNC to construct prototype floating plant
China plans 60 MWE modular nuclear reactor by 2020 and a floating reactor by 2025
The Floating Stable Platform: Office of Naval Research
The Future of Ocean Nuclear Synfuel Production
Nuclear Navy's Synfuel from Seawater Program: An interview with Kathy Lewis of the U.S. Naval Research Laboratory
Extracting Uranium from Seawater
Fueling our Nuclear Future
Spent Fuel and the Thorium Solution
UN Atlas: 44 percent of us live in coastal areas
Thursday, February 20, 2014
Monday, August 5, 2013
Saturday, February 16, 2013
Terror from the Sky
Meteorite crashes in Russia 2013
Meteorite crash in Russia: Video of meteorite explosion that stirred panic
Amateur Camera - Chelyabinsk meteorite impact in Russia 2013
Russian Meteorite Explosion Chaos and Panic in School
Russian Meteorite Chaos and Panic in School 2 - 15 Feb 2013
Russian Meteorite School Classroom Breaking Windows
RUSSIA, METEOR BLAST IN LOCAL SCHOOL !! Meteor Hits Russia.
Russian Meteorite Chaos and Panic in the Street
Dramatic CCTV Footage: Russian Meteorite Blast Blows out Doors and Window
Saturday, February 4, 2012
Saturday, January 21, 2012
Monday, September 5, 2011
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
CINEMA FANTASTIC
Popular Posts
-
by Marcel F. Williams Congress has now made it clear that they want the immediate development of a heavy lift vehicle and a crew explorato... -
by Marcel F. Williams Tuscany is renowned for its beautiful cities of Florence and Siena, and is historically famous as the birthplace ... -
X-Ray of a notional regolith shielded 16 meter in diameter biosphere (Credit: NASA) by Marcel F. Williams A t least 0.1 g is required... -
by Marcel F. Williams One frequent argument against the expansion of commercial nuclear power is the the claim that our planet is simply ... -
by Marcel F. Williams Because of the dangers of climate change and America's dependence on foreign oil, there's been a lot of specul... -
by Marcel F. Williams General Motors yesterday introduced the production model for their new plug-in hybrid vehicle (PHEV) which they believ... -
by Marcel F. Williams A typical 1000 MWe nuclear power plant produces about 30 tonnes of highly radioactive spent fuel on an annual basis. H... -
by Marcel F. Williams On December 17th 1935, the Douglas Aircraft Company introduced an new airplane that revolutionized commercial air trav... -
by Marcel F. Williams During the Great Depression, the Roosevelt administration decided to create jobs in the US by expanding electric power...
