Micro-Space >> Ultralight Manned Spaceflight

[rpspeck]

Micro-Space has initiated work with MEA as a regenerable CO2 absorber for deep space applications including Mars missions.  This material (Monoethanolamine) is the standard used on nuclear submarines and in many related industrial applications.  Oxidative degradation of MEA in industrial applications requires about 0.1 pound MEA replenishment per ton of CO2 removed.  This is the CO2 produced per crewmember on a 1000 day Mars mission.

A 50 gram supply of MEA, dissolved in 200 grams of water, is a very modest consumable supply to provide this important respiratory function for each member of a 1000 day Mars expedition.  Oxygen, as previously discussed, is regenerated from metabolic products (CO2 and H2O) by electrolysis and other reactions.

Water, produced as a metabolic byproduct and efficiently recycled, is not a consumable.  

Non-regenerable CO2 absorbers like LiOH (2,200 pounds/1000 days), or Sofnolime (8,000 pounds/1000 days), while useful for emergencies, are not in the same category (1/10 pound MEA (1.6 ounces)/1000 days).

Preliminary tests show that the gas transfer membranes Micro-Space is using for other “Zero G” systems are compatible with these solutions.  

The crew and location for Micro-Space long duration life support demonstrations have not yet been identified.  We prefer a high altitude location in Colorado (like Leadville or Climax), because this matches the reduced pressure which has such massive advantages for any habitat whose occupants want to engage in EVA.

At these ambient pressures, users can safely prebreathe pure Oxygen overnight and be ready to use a EVA suit without the danger of decompression sickness (The Bends).  This avoids much more cumbersome procedures (like “camping out” in the ISS airlock).  A user in this habitat could breathe Oxygen continuously from a mask and be ready to go outside at any moment, even several times a day, if he desired.

The food supply, for a 1000 day Mars Mission, remains at least 1000 pounds.  Few other consumables are involved other than propellants (and solar energy).    

[Danderman]

So, when is the next MicroSpace launch?

[Jorge]

bhankiii - 9/4/2007  9:22 AM

Jim - 7/4/2007  2:04 PM


GPS doesn't help find the station.  

The ISS would not allow that type of fast approach.

Mini-AERCam used GPS, if I recall correctly.

^used^would have used^

AERCam/SPRINT, which is the one that flew, had no sensors other than cameras and gyros. It definitely did not have GPS.

Mini-AERCam never flew.
--
JRF

[rpspeck]

Micro-Space is preparing for new tethered tests in a confined test space.  I am not sure I would call this a “Launch”.  The actual date is dependent on upgrading some subsystems, extracting test data for our FAA permit application and unrelated activities associated with maintaining “Cash Flow”.    

[rpspeck]

The Micro-Space “Zero G”, centrifugal evaporator continues to spin quietly.  It logged 595 days of operation yesterday, still at 14 times the required spin speed (ie, already >8 times the revolutions necessary for a low energy (ca 1000 day) Mars mission).  

As a review, this full scale unit will be used as the final stage in water recycling.  Fed one drop per second of liquid waste concentrates (totaling 4 liters = 4 kg/day), it will separate the dissolved solids from the pure water.  Evaporation = distillation is of course the process which turns the contents of a midden pond into rainwater on this planet: all water we use is recycled.

The concentrate includes liquid biological waste plus the concentrate from the “Reverse Osmosis” (RO) system.  The RO system is made from long life consumer modules but reconfigured to recirculate most of the cross channel flow to concentrate wastes.  The filtrate may contain some ionic contaminants, but is more than adequate for wash water (up to 40 gallons per day). The RO membranes have extremely high rejection for heavier molecules including dissolved oils and detergents.  

Distilled water is used for drinking.  Part of the distillate comes from the centrifugal evaporator with an equal or larger component coming directly from the astronaut (water vapor in exhaled breath and epidermal evaporation).  “Zero G” condensers are an interesting technology, and we have several types working but won’t detail them here.  In reality “fractional distillation” is used since ordinary distillation does not guarantee removal of volatile contaminants.

“Freeze Drying” is an alternate “Zero G” water extraction technique, and variants of this process will be used to extract water from solid wastes and in “Drying Laundry”.  

[rpspeck]

The Oppressed Dream

More than 3000 people have faced the dangers and hardships of Mount Everest and made it to the top. At present no one has shown a willingness to face comparable dangers for private flight into space (orbit+) and achieve this goal!

More than one hundred auto racing teams (IRL, Formula 1, and NASCAR Cup) spend more money EACH YEAR than would be required to buy a flight to orbit, or around the Moon (on a Russian Dnepr launch vehicle – possibly soon with SpaceX).

Is watching cars grind tires into powdered rubber and fill the air with noise and fumes really that much fun? No – just ask your wife.

The “Dream” may be alive, but it is comatose and on life support! It is hard to believe that with adventurers rowing across oceans, skiing across the poles – powered by kites – and climbers seeking ever more difficult routes on Earth’s highest peaks, that there is so little interest in adventure spaceflight! Why is this the case?

Scientifically, human spaceflight is a “done deal”, with transportation itself a commodity – albeit an expensive one. The answer to expensive transportation has always been, and remains, pack light and go anyway. Setting aside poorly designed gear (reminiscent of 1930s diving dress), space is less challenging and less hazardous than many human activities including SCUBA diving, High Altitude Mountaineering and Sky Diving. I will continue to reiterate and explain this as necessary.

The willingness to believe lies about space, and to avoid clear thinking on the subject, reveals a more subtle problem: Spiritual Oppression. Call it something else if you prefer, but it is so much easier to think about an impoverished future, with reduced expectations than about expanding opportunities and vast new resources!

It is as if “something” wants mankind to hunker down, and make do with a cave like corner on this planet: to turn away from the stars and focus on competitive survival. But the Road is Open, and we have a choice: Choose you this day …


Yes, developing a lightweight space craft is hard – but developing a good video game is harder!

Yes, reaching the Moon will be expensive – but fielding a team capable of winning in Formula 1 racing is more expensive!

Yes, walking on the Moon will be dangerous – but you can find many more dangerous challenges on Earth!

Do you really want to go? Does anyone really want to go?

(This, and other Micro-Space notes, were previously posted on www.spacefellowship.com/Forum)

[aero313]

rpspeck - 16/4/2007  1:39 PM

More than one hundred auto racing teams (IRL, Formula 1, and NASCAR Cup) spend more money EACH YEAR than would be required to buy a flight to orbit, or around the Moon (on a Russian Dnepr launch vehicle – possibly soon with SpaceX).

Is watching cars grind tires into powdered rubber and fill the air with noise and fumes really that much fun? No – just ask your wife.

Racing teams are not funded by spectators or even prize money.  They are rolling billboards funded by large corporations.  If you think there's a market for similar advertising opportunities with commercial spaceflight, more power to you.  Others who have attempted to tap into this market have failed.  Until you get a contract with ESPN or Fox, you won't attract much in the way of sponsorship.

Jorge - 13/4/2007  10:20 PM

bhankiii - 9/4/2007  9:22 AM

Jim - 7/4/2007  2:04 PM


GPS doesn't help find the station.  

The ISS would not allow that type of fast approach.

Mini-AERCam used GPS, if I recall correctly.

^used^would have used^

AERCam/SPRINT, which is the one that flew, had no sensors other than cameras and gyros. It definitely did not have GPS.

Mini-AERCam never flew.
--
JRF

Yes, well, duh.  I should have said, "the GPS board was being tested when the program's plug was pulled", but I was trying to be succinct.

[rpspeck]

Planetary/Star Camera.

Preliminary design work has been completed on the Micro-Space Planetary/Star camera.  This assembly compares the high resolution image of a planet (like Mars) to synchronized high resolution images of several stars.  The star cameras must be shielded from the bright light of the nearby planet.  

The star images establish a navigational reference system.  Relative motion of the planet image, compared to this reference, quantifies the intercept parameters, flyby orbit and periapse.  On Mars, the periapse must be controlled to 1 km to keep aerobraking Delta V within 10% of its desired value.  Two hundred thousand kilometers from a planet, inbound on intercept, that distance would appear as a one second of arc angular error.

Analysis of the relative motions of the planetary image does not yield the periapse distance directly, but does allow calculation of the specific angular momentum of the spacecraft relative to Mars.  Inbound acceleration of the craft will increase its velocity, and decrease the periapse distance (conserving angular momentum until air drag becomes sensible).  This increases the velocity, and reduces periapse distance for a low energy mission to Mars by a factor of two, and makes the geometric intercept projection proportionally less critical.  About one day before intercept, an unintended 2 cm/sec lateral velocity (0.02 m/s) will produce a 2 km change in projected intercept distance, and the 1 km maximum error in periapse for successful aerobraking.

Reliable aerobraking (particularly into a highly eccentric orbit) demands final course detection and correction to the described accuracy.  The Micro-Space camera assembly, with some presently breadboarded subsystems, promises to exceed these requirements.    

rpspeck - 16/4/2007  2:20 PM

Planetary/Star Camera.

Preliminary design work has been completed on the Micro-Space Planetary/Star camera.  This assembly compares the high resolution image of a planet (like Mars) to synchronized high resolution images of several stars.  The star cameras must be shielded from the bright light of the nearby planet.  

The star images establish a navigational reference system.  Relative motion of the planet image, compared to this reference, quantifies the intercept parameters, flyby orbit and periapse.  On Mars, the periapse must be controlled to 1 km to keep aerobraking Delta V within 10% of its desired value.  Two hundred thousand kilometers from a planet, inbound on intercept, that distance would appear as a one second of arc angular error.

Analysis of the relative motions of the planetary image does not yield the periapse distance directly, but does allow calculation of the specific angular momentum of the spacecraft relative to Mars.  Inbound acceleration of the craft will increase its velocity, and decrease the periapse distance (conserving angular momentum until air drag becomes sensible).  This increases the velocity, and reduces periapse distance for a low energy mission to Mars by a factor of two, and makes the geometric intercept projection proportionally less critical.  About one day before intercept, an unintended 2 cm/sec lateral velocity (0.02 m/s) will produce a 2 km change in projected intercept distance, and the 1 km maximum error in periapse for successful aerobraking.

Reliable aerobraking (particularly into a highly eccentric orbit) demands final course detection and correction to the described accuracy.  The Micro-Space camera assembly, with some presently breadboarded subsystems, promises to exceed these requirements.    

I'm curious how much of this you've been able to get from NASA experience, and how much you've had to develop on your own.  Has NASA been supportive / helpful on this?

[rpspeck]

RE: NASA,
 
NASA provides a treasure trove of accessible research data without which no entrepreneurial spaceflight effort would have a chance.  

Beyond that, I would rate NASA “support” at less than zero.  

I am hoping to find experts who have already perfected study of interplanetary flight options.  I know this work has been done, and my efforts to recreate it are going slowly.  The described camera work draws heavily on our experience (and success) with high performance, noncontact gauging.

[rpspeck]

aero313 - 17/4/2007  12:14 PM

rpspeck - 16/4/2007  1:39 PM

More than one hundred auto racing teams (IRL, Formula 1, and NASCAR Cup) spend more money EACH YEAR than would be required to buy a flight to orbit, or around the Moon (on a Russian Dnepr launch vehicle – possibly soon with SpaceX).

Is watching cars grind tires into powdered rubber and fill the air with noise and fumes really that much fun? No – just ask your wife.

Racing teams are not funded by spectators or even prize money.  They are rolling billboards funded by large corporations.  If you think there's a market for similar advertising opportunities with commercial spaceflight, more power to you.  Others who have attempted to tap into this market have failed.  Until you get a contract with ESPN or Fox, you won't attract much in the way of sponsorship.

What you say here is largely, and possible entirely, true.  I am talking with one successful team who had “Ericcson” (cell phones, etc.) as a sponsor for their polar expedition.  

The Apollo program attracted a large audience without a network contract, so this could happen.  Certainly a large audience (and continuing coverage opportunities) is desirable to generate tens of millions $$ of sponsorship.  

On the other hand 12 teams seem to be spending $100 to $200 Million each to design, build and prepare racing sailboats for the next “America’s Cup” race.  This event does not have a large or continuing network commitment.  (The boats themselves have only token value after the race).  On the other hand very large egos are also involved.  It is likely that the same element will be present for historic milestones in space.

[yinzer]

It's not the coverage that matters, it's the number of people watching, who they are, and how strongly they feel about it.  Yacht racing has a very long history and is popular among people with a lot of money which helps get sponsorship, and has the element of competition, which helps get principals to kick in.  Car racing is also very popular, has an element of competition, and allows people to identify very closely with those involved.  Which is why I fear that the Rocket Racing League is more or less doomed to fail.  Both car racing and yacht racing also have directly connected markets (cars and yachts) which bring in manufacturer participation.

Space travel has very little of any of this, at least since the Apollo days (when beating the Soviets was the main motivation).

[meiza]

There are Red Bull air races, though it's a relatively new phenomenon.

[rpspeck]

yinzer - 17/4/2007  3:56 PM

It's not the coverage that matters, it's the number of people watching, who they are, and how strongly they feel about it.  Yacht racing has a very long history and is popular among people with a lot of money which helps get sponsorship, and has the element of competition, which helps get principals to kick in.  Car racing is also very popular, has an element of competition, and allows people to identify very closely with those involved.  Which is why I fear that the Rocket Racing League is more or less doomed to fail.  Both car racing and yacht racing also have directly connected markets (cars and yachts) which bring in manufacturer participation.

Space travel has very little of any of this, at least since the Apollo days (when beating the Soviets was the main motivation).

A quick survey of America’s Cup team sponsors shows boat makers and suppliers at best in low level positions.  “Red Bull” shows up as one of two leading sponsors of the “Victory Challenge” boat.  Most of the list are typical for very high end market products:  Telecommunications,  IT, watches, expensive clothing and accessories, Banks (Wealth Managers), shipping and cruise companies.  A high level sponsor for the “China Team”, interestingly, seems to be a branded supplier of family foods (middle class in US terms).

Categorize them as “seeking eyeballs connected with plump pocketbooks” – not yachtsmen specifically.  

Can Space deliver these?  Obviously unproven, since no manned, private vehicle has ventured as far as orbit, let alone into interplanetary space.  

Space races will appear (just as Polar “Races” did a century ago) as soon as two teams decide that the “prizes” are achievable and affordable:  First Human on Mars, preceded by: First Man to fly Around Mars and  First Man on Phobos.  Easier prizes include: First Solo Flight Around the Moon and First Human Moon Landing of the 21st Century.  


These will be vastly more interesting than the 1900s expeditions with near real-time audio and video reports.  Interesting and colorful personalities will crew many of these expeditions.  And, as always, fatal accidents only increase audience appeal.  

I would gamble (more specifically, have gambled) that such expeditions will draw a very attractive audience.  This was previewed by the X-Prize “Pseudo-race”, which earned a position on the MSNBC opening page in 2004.

[aero313]

rpspeck - 16/4/2007  5:37 PM

The Apollo program attracted a large audience without a network contract, so this could happen.  Certainly a large audience (and continuing coverage opportunities) is desirable to generate tens of millions $$ of sponsorship.  

Apollo 11 attracted a worldwide audience.  So did 13. By Apollo 17, NADA.  When was the last time a shuttle launch was broadcast live on network TV?

Now, if you could put Brittany or Lindsey on the shuttle and get it on Extra Hollywood...

[rpspeck]

Extra Fuel >> Life Support Spares

Continuing status reports (on both forums), our propulsion chemistry has some interesting side effects.  We continue to work with Hydrogen Peroxide as an oxidizer. (We are working our way up with more concentrated tests, but are not using 90% yet.) Ninety percent Hydrogen Peroxide offers specific impulse identical to that produced using N2O4 with the same RP-1 fuel.  Both storable oxidizers will provide higher performance with Hydrazine based fuels, almost equaling that produced with cryogenic LOX + RP-1.  All three fuel systems are adequate (but not necessary “optimum”) for interplanetary flight.

The Hydrogen Peroxide is a relatively nontoxic, storable option.  But, if can easily be converted to Oxygen and water for human use!

An “Ultralight” solo Mars mission will leave Earth orbit using 15,000 pounds of propellant.  A few percent extra propellant, a necessary reserve for precise acceleration, will likely leave hundreds of pounds of Hydrogen Peroxide.  Since this can be converted to Oxygen, water and heat, an emergency supply of these life support items will be available.  

A similar situation will occur on a planetary surface: residual fuel can become life support spares.  This is extended if an “extra” ascension module has been landed.  This module may be slated to carry mineral samples to orbit, but of course is also available if one landed for human use is not fully functional. And in any case, hundreds of pounds of H2O2 can be cannibalized for life support should that be necessary.

[rpspeck]

Symptoms of a Dream Oppressed:
 
Dwayne A. Day (in “Heinlein’s Ghost (part 2)”, The Space Review, April 16, 2007) slides easily into the suggestion that the  1951 movie “Destination Moon”, that Robert Heinlein worked on, is “simplistic, possibly even naïve.”: an adventure on the moon appears too easy.  Yet the truth is that he made such an effort appear unrealistically difficult and dangerous!

In the 1951 context, a few decades after Amundsen, Scott and Shackleton’s heroic polar expeditions and concurrent with Himalayan explorations, landmark expeditions were expected to be difficult.  In today’s “Couch Potato” context, putting on a pressure suit is characterized as a “daring”.    

History records the events of Apollo (other than the capsule fire) as having too little drama to make a decent movie!  It took serious exaggeration to even make “Apollo 13”, the movie, a dramatic cliffhanger!  (Days of quiet terror and mental anguish – knowing that one more flaw in a chain of precision events will spell doom – are hard to convey through a movie screen.) This reality is in the thoughts of Apollo “Unbelievers”: it WAS too easy!  The dissonance between reality and the current teaching of “Hard, Dangerous, Medical Catastrophes, Success Unlikely”, makes it very hard to accept the history as anything other than a fraud.  Unless, of course, current teaching is a fraud!  

Dwayne Day, in the cited (and very good) article, observes that Heinlein “lacked knowledge about the threat of radiation, or the long-term effects of weightlessness.” Yet these effects were conspicuously absent in all 9 of the Apollo missions above Earth orbit!  

More importantly, they remain conspicuously absent in all space efforts.  What medical problem (disability etc.) characteristically flags one as an astronaut? (Excluding the possibility of diaper rash.)  Yes, cataracts seem to be more frequent.  But this common (and treatable) condition also occurs more often in welders and others exposed to ultraviolet light.  Yes, exercise is required to avoid the well known effects of extended bed rest.  And, yes radiation effects from a modestly shielded Mars expedition threaten to doom 0.88% of travelers to “incurable cancer” (unless medical techniques improve in the 20 years before it shows up).   This rate soars to 3.5% (or drops to 0.22% with equal probability) when an estimated 4:1 uncertainty factor is added to the best scientific evidence.  There is of course no “epidemiological” evidence (extracted from population statistics) since this level of incidence can’t be resolved even in LARGE populations.  (There is also no “type” of radiation not already absorbed by astronauts from man years of cumulative exposure.)   Are there risks?  Of course!  Exploration has been characterized as “finding new ways to die”.

The ease with which we accept spaceflight as “Hard, Dangerous, Medical Catastrophes, Success Unlikely”, in spite of meager evidence (someday someone actually will die above the Earth’s atmosphere) is one portion of the “Oppressed Dream”.

Why can’t we discuss the dangers honestly?  Dwayne Day complains that “Heinlein did not write about an environment more hostile to human life than anywhere on Earth.”  In this he speaks from ignorance.  Annapurna (the first Himalayan >8000 meter peak climbed) has claimed the lives of 40% of those who attempted to climb it.  Matching this would require the death of 10 of the astronauts who have ventured above LEO.  I suffer severe dissonance trying to relate the reality of ongoing adventures (including new efforts to climb Annapurna), and the daring people who have achieved such objectives, with the apparent lack of interest in the “final frontier”.

This disinterest is proclaimed in “opinion polls”.  “Experts” on this forum insist that no sponsor would waste the kind of money spent on an “America’s Cup” racer (or similar racing sailboat) to put his brand on the first human Mars Expedition: a project capturing more than three years of attention from a sophisticated audience!

When did the human spirit die?  I know it didn’t.  Therefore what spirit is smothering those in whom it is alive and yearning to GO: just as Amundsen, Scott and Shackleton did – with private funding?  

[rpspeck]

MARS: Only the Names are Unknown.
(Also posted as an independent topic.)

Micro-Space has identified and mastered* all the technologies required for a human expedition to Mars.  The “Micro-Space/Entrespace Interplanetary Co-op” effort plus discussions with qualified adventurers and operational engineering prototypes have verified this preparation.  The production of customized hardware for near Earth space, cis-lunar and interplanetary expeditions can begin.  The minimum requirements for travel to Mars are actually well known (including the fact that it is far easier to reach Mars than the surface of our Moon) and are achievable with proven technology.  Organizations insisting on new technology do not like today’s answer: a long, difficult and risky adventure.  An adventure resembling a 19th Century polar expedition rather than a 21st Century cruise.

But the Road is Open.  Adventurous souls will walk on Mars long before more “civilized” efforts are even funded.  They will reach that goal, and bring back samples in less than ten years.

Few are prepared to believe these assertions.  But no “groundswell” of support or political activism is required.  Pioneers are those who “Seize the Dream”™ and step out in faith while believing is still a challenge: they will be recorded as the first.

Micro-Space has focused on Ultralight Space Technologies – sufficient for a small and well trained crew.  This approach does not hide dangers behind a massive, but nearly useless, facade but addresses them with lightweight, redundant safety systems.  Personal life support equipment taps SCUBA and mountaineering concepts and adds highly efficient recycling.  Planetary ascension systems are styled like an ultralight aircraft.  Travel will be in pressurized “Covered Wagons”, using airtight fabric in place of metal walls.  A solo Mars mission begins with a few tons of food, fuel and gear and will have costs dominated by delivery of that – plus the adventurer – to Low Earth Orbit.

Adventurers like Marco Polo, Jim Bridger and John Wesley Powell saw that the road to their dreams was open, and they understood the tools and skills necessary for success.  Major John Powell, a one armed veteran of the Civil War,  considered carefully what he might face in the deep and inaccessible canyons of the Colorado River.  Prepared to overcome most of those challenges, his team accepted calculated risks when necessary and succeeded. For those who insist on certain safety lies the certainty of following in other’s footsteps.  Major Powell’s shoestring adventure did not need an act of congress: neither will the small expeditions that will soon put the first humans on Mars.  

Federal Express could revive its reputation as a “Package Delivery Pioneer”, for example, by hand delivering a customer’s package to the Martian surface (with interplanetary, on-line tracking). It could accomplish this, as expedition sponsor, with the annual funding of its NASCAR team.

It is the teams which combine charisma with courage and competence who will both attract funding and succeed.  Theirs will be the names listed in tomorrow’s history books.

* "Mastered" is used in the classical “Trade” and University context: prepared by experience, knowledge and skill to UNDERTAKE demanding work with the expectation of success.  The continuing Micro-Space status reports show that 16 years of expensive development has yielded results.  It is time to define, assemble and verify mission specific hardware, and actually GO to Mars.  

[rpspeck]

Mars Missions: A survey of ultralight options.

Depending on your fuel, you can get to the Moon using about 75% of your mass in LEO for fuel to accelerate to near escape velocity AND brake into lunar orbit.  Somewhat LESS is needed to accelerate into a Mars transfer orbit (8 month transfer time).  Aerobraking at Mars requires very little fuel. (It does require a camera, derived from prototypes we have in operation, which will allow you to precisely monitor and adjust your intercept trajectory.)

With 3600 kg to LEO using a Dnepr ($12 Million), you get up to 1200 kg into Mars orbit. (If, that is, you want to orbit.  An interesting 3 year “free return” orbit is available if you will settle for being the first human to fly into interplanetary space and approach Mars.)   Orbiting Mars (and reducing the trip to 2.7 years) you will need to burn about 25% of your remaining mass to accelerate out of Mars orbit and return to Earth (900 kg  return mass).  

With 200 watts solar power to run recycling, you will have no consumables other than food.  Food for 1000 days of modest activity will probably run 450 kg.  (Diets to 250 kg (for 1000 days) are conceivable for normal sized travelers, but not a good idea).  Using 35 kg for a habitat the size of a small airliner cabin, you have >350 kg for yourself and your reentry system.  These are achievable numbers.  

If you want company, or larger margins, buy two or three Dnepr launches ($36 Million for three, minus quantity discount).  

(Yes, walking on Mars at least doubles your equipment mass.)

What to do?

 1.  Go outside and play.  (Don’t be stupid and don’t use antiquated, 1930s style diving gear as a pressure suit.)  Smart solo SCUBA divers have at least 3 independent air supplies and similar redundancy for all other equipment.  In this case, the later includes maneuvering thrusters.  You can’t get lost, since simple radio systems will pinpoint your relative position to centimeters.  If all your maneuvering systems fail, push the big red button: your spacecraft will come and get you.  Take a whole liter of Liquid Oxygen and you have 48 hours of air to play and still be rescued.  Take two liters if you are the cautious type, and give yourself 96 hours alone in space.  (More fun than skiing!)

2.  Answer some of the thousands of emails and voice messages you will receive every day.  

3.  Read or watch some of the thousands of books and movies you wanted to find time for.

4.  Practice some clever words (and edited video) to send back to your sponsors and the waiting world.

5.  Hang up the telephone and spend some time thanking The Creator for this awesome Universe!