Tug-Assisted Arrivals and Departures

Bear in mind that I am no expert in orbital mechanics,  and I have no computer codes to analyze 3-body problems.  But I do understand the basics of 2-body problems,  especially elliptical orbits,  fairly well.  There are simple formulas for those.  That is the basis for the discussion topic here.

It is one thing to build and fuel a large craft in low Earth orbit.  It is quite another to propel it from there onto an interplanetary trajectory.  The velocity requirement is to reach a speed somewhat over escape,  from only circular orbit speed. 

The math says that escape speed is larger than circular orbit speed by a factor of the square root of 2,  or about 1.414.  For Earth,  that is about 11 km/s for escape, and about 8 km/s for circular orbit,  with the velocity requirement being the difference,  at about 3 km/s.  To depart, we actually need a bit more than that 3 km/s difference,  because we actually need to exceed escape speed.

By using a space tug and an extended elliptical orbit about the Earth,  that velocity requirement on the departing spacecraft can be substantially reduced.  The space tug is only reusable if it ends up remaining in that extended ellipse,  from which it can then return to low circular orbit.

Geometrically,  the situation is symmetrical,  so that this concept also works for arrivals from interplanetary trajectories.  But the sequence of events that must happen is not symmetrical,  so the arrival trajectory plan cannot be the exact mirror reverse of the departure trajectory plan. 

The example here is for Earth,  using low Earth orbit as the basis,  as this is the most easily reached orbit for launches from the surface.  But the same arguments and math apply to departures and arrivals at any planetary body!  Only the numbers are different. 

Let us start with the arrival scenario depicted as sequential sketches in Figure 1.  The arriving craft is coming in on a hyperbolic path with respect to the Earth,  with its perigee specifically located at low Earth circular orbit altitude,  and a speed at perigee somewhat larger than Earth escape speed at that same altitude. 

As the arriving craft reaches its hyperbolic perigee,  it must impulsively make a modest speed reduction (delta-vee,  or dV) to slow to a speed just under Earth escape speed at that altitude.  That puts it onto an extended elliptical orbit about the Earth,  instead of continuing on into deep space. 

The space tug that is going to retrieve this craft from that extended elliptical orbit is not already on that ellipse,  and in fact cannot be on that ellipse!  It must be somewhere on the low circular orbit with the short period of about 90 minutes.  The extended ellipse has a much longer period near 4 (or even 5) days! 

Because the timing of the craft’s arrival into that extended ellipse,  relative to where the tug is located on that low circular orbit,  is not something that can be controlled,  the tug could be “anywhere” around that circular orbit!  It will pass the ellipse perigee point multiple times,  while the arriving craft makes one circuit about the extended ellipse. 

There will be one tug circuit about the circular orbit where it and the arriving craft are both very near each other at the ellipse perigee,  at the same time!  That is where the tug must fire its propulsion to accelerate impulsively to ellipse perigee speed,  thus matching both position and velocity with the arriving craft.  The closer the orbit period ratio is to an integer,  the closer together this rendezvousing pair of vehicles will be,  and the lower the required rendezvous dV budget.

Actual rendezvous and docking take a finite interval that is not trivial!  The two can dock,  but by the time that is accomplished,  they will no longer be anywhere near the ellipse perigee point!  The docked pair must complete another circuit about the ellipse.  When they reach ellipse perigee the second time,  the tug can decelerate the docked pair into low circular orbit,  precisely because the perigee altitude is preserved by making burns there,  and not anywhere else along the orbit. 

From there,  normal rendezvous procedures can be used to reach any desired orbital station or facility.

Figure 1 – The Arrival Scenario

The departure scenario sequence of sketches is given in Figure 2.   The difference in the event sequence is that the departing craft and the tug are docked together when this scenario starts!  They must only wait in circular orbit until the geometry lines up with the intended departure path,  and then the tug fires to bring the docked pair to the perigee speed of the extended ellipse. 

They undock as that burn terminates,  and the departing craft immediately makes its modest burn to reach the intended departure speed.  Meanwhile,  the tug just coasts one circuit about the ellipse.  When it reaches perigee,  it can decelerate back into low circular orbit. 

From there,  standard rendezvous procedures can return the tug to any desired orbital station or facility.  Starting out docked together is precisely what provides the proper timing of the departure events sequence,  that is inherently lacking during the arrival sequence!  Undocking and moving away a short distance,  for departure burn safety,  is something that only takes several seconds,  not the several minutes to an hour or so,  for close-in rendezvous and docking. 

Figure 2 – The Departure Scenario

For the sake of argument,  presume the following data:

Vcirc = 7.8 km/s

Vesc = 11.0 km/s

Vper = 10.9 km/s

Vdep = 11.5 km/s = Varr

Those values produce the following departure results:

 

Laden tug dV = Vper – Vcirc = 3.1 km/s

Craft departure dV = Vdep – Vper = 0.6 km/s (unassisted this is 3.7 km/s)

Unladen tug back to circular dV = Vper – Vcirc = 3.1 km/s

They produce similar results values for the arrival scenario,  reflecting the geometric symmetry:

Craft arrival dV = Varr – Vper = 0.6 km/s (unassisted this is 3.7 km/s)

Unladen tug onto ellipse dV = Vper – Vcirc = 3.1 km/s

Laden tug back onto circular dV = Vper – Vcirc = 3.1 km/s

To these figures one should add some dV budgets for rendezvous and docking for the tug,  likely near 0.2 km/s for each such maneuver.  For departure,  there is likely only one such maneuver,  conducted unladen,  as the tug returns to the appropriate facility in low orbit.  For the arrival scenario,  there are likely two such maneuvers:  one unladen to rendezvous and dock with the craft in the extended ellipse,  the other laden to rendezvous (and dock) the docked pair with the appropriate facility in low orbit.  This reflects the decided asymmetry of the events sequences and circumstances,  for arrival versus departure.

For the departure scenario,  the tug sees these dV requirements in the listed order:

Laden onto ellipse                        dV = 3.1 km/s  (this is the total,  and it is done first!)

Unladen back to circular              dV = 3.1 km/s

Unladen rendezvous and dock     dV = 0.2 km/s

Total unladen                                dV = 3.3 km/s (second)

For the arrival scenario,  the tug sees these dV requirements in the listed order:

Unladen onto ellipse                    dV = 3.1 km/s

Unladen rendezvous and dock     dV = 0.2 km/s

Total unladen                                dV = 3.3 km/s (first)

Laden back onto circular              dV = 3.1 km/s

Laden rendezvous and dock         dV = 0.2 km/s

Total laden                                    dV = 3.3 km/s (second)

Either way,  the interplanetary craft sees the same departure and arrival dV requirements:  some 0.6 km/s for both of these scenarios.  The weight statements for these cannot be the same,  so you cannot simply sum the dV’s,  as neither scenario (as described) includes operations,  any staging,  or any refueling,  at the destination.  All of those are set by the overall mission design.

As for the tug,  the laden vs unladen weight statements are drastically different,  so you cannot sum the laden and unladen total dV’s for one simple rocket equation calculation.  Those must be two separate but linked rocket equation sizing calculations.   And the order in which the events occur controls the linkage between the calculations!  That linkage is via the weight statements.

The asymmetry of the events sequence also shows up in how many times the craft and the tug must each go around the ellipse. 

For the arrival sequence,  the craft will go around the ellipse either 0 (unlikely) or 1 time,  before the tug can enter the ellipse with it.  Then the docked pair go around the ellipse a second time,  for either 1 (unlikely) or 2 (likely) total ellipse circuits on arrival for the craft,  and just 1 for the tug.

In contrast,  for the departure sequence,  the craft never goes around the ellipse at all,  and the tug must go around once. 

What if the departure/arrival speed requirement is higher?

A higher departure/arrival speed requirement than the nominal 11.5 km/s discussed above,  just means the difference between those arrival/departure speeds from 11.5 km/s,  simply adds directly to the interplanetary craft dV requirement.  There is no change to the tug dV requirements,  because the actual departure/arrival speed is not part of its dV requirement calculations.  Those only figure into the interplanetary craft dV requirements. 

What would affect both is electing a different extended ellipse from the 10.9 km/s perigee speed used for this discussion.  For that reason,  it is recommended that for any given mission to be designed,  first you pick a low circular orbit and get its speed and period.  You don’t really need escape speed at that altitude,  except as a check value (arrival/departure must be higher than that).

Then pick an extended ellipse such that its perigee is at the low circular altitude,  and its period is an integer multiple of the circular period.  Then get its perigee and apogee speeds.  I would recommend apogee altitudes almost out to the moon,  in order to get perigee speeds up as close as you can,  to escape at perigee altitude.  That is the way to reduce (as far as is possible) the dV requirement on the interplanetary craft. 

Analyze separately what your near-Earth departure/arrival speed requirement is,  for the interplanetary mission that you want to fly.  The formulas for the dV’s to be figured,  are given in the text right after Figure 2 above. 

Final Remarks

The topic here has been propulsive arrivals and departures,  assisted by a space tug.  For arrivals only,  there is also the possibility of the craft aerobraking in a pass down in the atmosphere,  such that it is on an extended ellipse as it leaves the atmosphere.  However,  this is not without propulsive burn requirements on the part of the arriving craft,  so it is no “freebie”. 

First,  at the ellipse apogee,  the craft will have to make a small burn posigrade to lift the ellipse perigee up out of the atmosphere and yet further to circular orbit altitude.  This is to avoid an unintended entry on the next perigee pass. 

Second,  the craft will have to make some sort of modest burn on the next raised perigee pass,  to get the “right” apogee,  such that the ellipse period is an integer multiple of low circular orbit period. 

Third,  bear in mind that peak heating starts before peak deceleration gees in any sort of entry,  and the gees required here are significant,  meaning the pass has to go deep in the atmosphere.  In turn,  that means the peak heating on this type of a deceleration pass will be of similar magnitude to that of a direct entry!  And that means the vehicle must be fairly compact,  have no parallel-mounted nacelles or other structures,  and must be protected by what amounts to a fully-capable direct entry heat shield.  Those are very restrictive design requirements!

Once these orbital adjustments are made by the arriving craft,  then the tug rendezvous-and-assist back to circular can proceed,  exactly as described above.  (There is no such aerobraking thing for departure,  though.)

For more details about aerobraking deceleration and elliptic capture,  please see my article “Elliptic Capture”  on this site,  dated 1 October 2024.

Update 12-8-2024:

There’s no real difference between the results for the presumed data used above in this article,  and more exact data obtained from analyzing the elliptical orbits problem,  in this case automated with the “orbit basics.xlsx” spreadsheet that I created for 2-body ellipse problems. 

Figure A is an image of a portion of the spreadsheet results,  showing both low circular and a particular extended ellipse.  Figure B is a not-to-scale sketch of those orbital results,  explicitly showing the important velocity data.  Figure C has a table of computed delta-velocity (dV) data from these results,  for an arbitrary set of departure speeds.  All figures are at the end of this update. 

The first lesson here is that presumed data in the article give almost exactly the same dV to get back and forth between the circular and extended ellipse orbits:  3.103 versus 3.1 km/s.  Therefore the above article’s results are actually quite accurate. 

The second lesson here is that it is not very hard to determine an extended ellipse whose period is an integer multiple of the period of the low circular orbit.  Iterative apogee distance inputs are easy with the spreadsheet.  One can make this as accurate as one desires.  To 4 or 5 significant figures,  that period ratio as an approximation to an integer,  should be more than accurate enough to make rendezvous much easier.   Clearly,  there are other similar solutions at 144:1,  146:1,  and so forth.  Take your pick,  just get the period ratio as close to an integer as you can.

The third lesson here is dramatically pointed out by the third figure:  the dV between circular and elliptic is always constant,  regardless of the hyperbolic departure velocity needed by the interplanetary craft.  That is because neither the circular nor the elliptical orbit are changing,  only the required hyperbolic departure speed.  The dV to be supplied by the craft is low if the required departure speed is lower.  If that departure speed is higher,  that craft dV then gets larger.  The difference in departure speeds simply adds to the craft’s dV requirement,  not the tug’s. 

All that really means is that tug assist is more valuable for min energy Hohmann travel,  and a bit less valuable for higher-energy interplanetary trajectories.   But,  if you try to obtain more of the total dV from the tug,  you almost immediately push it beyond escape speed,  where it is lost in space instead of returning via the ellipse to be reusable!  This fourth important lesson shows up,  in the small difference between ellipse perigee speed and local escape speed at that altitude.  For these data as illustrated here,  that difference is only 0.1 km/s = 100 m/s!

It is only for purposes of lunar missions that the tug can supply essentially all of the departure speed requirement,  precisely because the required departure speed is just barely less than escape speed!  That puts the craft at essentially near-zero speed at that ellipse apogee,  very near the distance of the moon’s orbit.  The moon essentially “runs over” the craft from behind at its orbital speed,  which is very nearly 1 km/s.  The gravitational interaction from there is a 3-body problem (Earth,  moon,  and craft),  which in Apollo’s case led to a “figure-8” trajectory into a retrograde low lunar orbit,  with the circular entry burn occurring behind the moon as viewed from Earth.

3-body problems cannot be done pencil-and-paper,  or with pencil-and-paper calculations automated in a spreadsheet.  They are done only with finite-difference computer programs.   That 3-body figure-8 trajectory was essentially the only real computer analysis done during the Apollo program.  The rest was mostly slide rule (or desktop calculator) work.  Pencil-and-paper stuff!

Figure A – Two Results Excerpts From the Spreadsheet,  for Circular and Extended Ellipse

Figure B – Sketch Showing the Spreadsheet-Calculated Orbits and the Relevant Velocity Data

Figure C – Computed Delta-Velocity (dV) Data

Update 12-15-2024:  this update explores the relative merit of various possible tug propulsion systems for the tug-assisted departure scenario only.  The orbital scenario is 300 km altitude eastward circular low Earth orbit (LEO),  with an extended departure ellipse.  That departure ellipse has the same perigee altitude of 300 km,  and apogee radial distance near 361,000 km,  for a period near 5 days.  Its perigee speed is near Earth escape speed at that altitude. 

I looked at the storable propellant combination nitrogen tetroxide (NTO) and monomethyl hydrazine (MMH),  at liquid oxygen (LOX) and liquid methane (LCH4),  LOX and liquid hydrogen (LH2),  and at a version of the 1970’s-vintage NERVA nuclear thermal rocket that used LH2.  I looked at 3 chemical engines,  of 6.5 metric tons-force thrust each,  on the chemical rocket tug stages,  with 3 burning laden and only 1 burning unladen,  and a stage inert fraction (laden) of 5% on all 3 versions.  For the nuclear stage,  I looked at only 1 engine,  of some 13 metric tons-force thrust,  and a laden stage inert fraction of 15%,  reflecting the far lower engine thrust/weight ratio of the nuclear engine.

I found all 4 possibilities to be feasible,  with the desirability ranking in the same order as specific impulse (Isp).  That is because the one-way delta-vee (dV) velocity requirements were at or below the effective exhaust velocity values for these various engines.  The best are the LOX-LH2 chemical,  and the LH2-based nuclear.  Using nuclear in Earth orbit raises all sorts of technical safety and political issues,  that the chemical stage propulsions do not share.  But,  “you get what you pay for”:  take the nuclear risks,  and get the superior nuclear performance. 

In any event,  this kind of tug needs a “stage life” equal to,  or preferably significantly exceeding,  the elliptical orbital period of about 5 days.  We simply cannot allow cryogenic propellant evaporation to over-pressure tug stage tankage on that time scale.  The storable option is not afflicted by this design constraint,  although it has a propellant freezing constraint when shadowed. 

The choice of payload mass to be pushed to near-escape speeds by the tug was arbitrary:  10 metric tons.  Its form is irrelevant in these calculations.  This could be almost anything assembled by docking modules together (and fueling them) in LEO.  That presumes an appropriate assembly and refueling facility exists in LEO!  That is the critical enabling factor to make tug-assisted interplanetary departures a feasible and practical thing to attempt!  The benefits of doing so are self-evidently obvious (greatly-reduced dV requirements on the interplanetary vehicle design)!

I had created a custom spreadsheet file named “space tugs.xlsx” to look at these issues in a convenient way,  using the rocket equation with vehicle thrust/weight acceleration constraints.  For this update,  I added a worksheet named “compare dep” to specifically examine elliptic departure onto interplanetary trajectories,  with tugs using a variety of propellant and engine selections.  These results are approximate,  but very definitely well “inside the ballpark” of what is achievable. 

Figure I shows the spreadsheet image of the results I got,  for a storables tug.  Figure II shows what I obtained for a LOX-methane tug.  Figure III shows the results for a LOX-LH2 tug.  And for completeness,  I examined a nuclear thermal tug using LH2,  based on the 1970’s-vintage NERVA results.  Those are given in Figure IV.  Finally,  there is a summary figure showing the salient results for direct comparison;  that is Figure V.  All figures are at the end of this update.  The best two are the LOX-LH2 and the nuclear,  but all are quite feasible for interplanetary elliptic departures.  

Figure I – Chemical Tug NTO-MMH Option

Figure II – Chemical Tug LOX-LCH4 Option

Figure III – Chemical Tug LOX-LH2 Option

Figure IV – NERVA LH2 Nuclear Thermal Tug Option

Figure V – Propellant Option Comparison (Departures Only)

Update 12-17-2024:  I added an analysis extension to the “compare dep” worksheet of the “space tug stuff.xlsx” spreadsheet file,  that I have been using for these space tug studies.  That extension takes the as-sized tug intended for hyperbolic departure missions,  and simply uses it for hyperbolic arrival missions,  at full propellant load and a reduced arrival payload.  Hyperbolic arrival increases the velocity requirement slightly because of a rendezvous budget not needed for departures,   but more importantly it uses more propellant in the unladen phase of flight because that occurs first,  not last,  as in the departure scenario. 

I ran the same 4 propellant combinations,  as for the departure propellant study in the second update.  Those are NTO-MMH storables,  LOX-LCH4 and LOX-LH2 cryogenics,  and a NERVA-type nuclear thermal option that uses cryogenic LH2.  I kept the same number and choices of engines,  which tended to under-accelerate the unladen chemical tugs at full propellant load.  Going to 2 engines instead of only 1 would alleviate that,  getting a more efficient impulsive burn.  However,  I did not specifically analyze that issue in this study.    It did not affect the calculated arrival payload outcomes, which do presume an efficient impulsive burn. 

Images of the added arrival analysis blocks,  directly from the spreadsheet worksheet,  are included in Figures X and Y below.  The first one has the images for NTO-MMH and LOX-LCH4.  The second one has the images for LOX-LH2 and NERVA.  These are provided to show the same full detail,  matching that provided in update 2 above.  However,  it is the summary in Figure Z below that provides the real results with full clarity. 

The payload fraction is deceptive:  it reflects a reduced payload relative to a reduced ignition mass (in turn because of the reduced payload).  The real tale is told by the propellant/payload ratio,  which reflects the critical refueling logistics that are likely to control decision-making.  If that is more than about 3 or 4 to 1,  the propellant combination is probably becoming rather unattractive,  in terms of those propellant supplying effort logistics. 

I did not include the ratio of arrival to departure payload capability,  but since all the departure payloads were the arbitrary 10 metric tons,  just divide the arrival payloads by 10 to get that ratio.  If that ratio gets much below 0.3 to 0.4,  the attractiveness is also reduced,  unless circumstances should prove to be that arriving craft are just inherently very much lower in mass. 

Overall,  including the departure studies in the second update,  any of the four propellant combinations studied could serve as the basis for a departure tug design.  The best two by far were the LOX-LH2 chemical and the LH2-based nuclear,  but the propellant/payload ratios were low enough that any of the four combinations could usefully serve.  That’s not so true for arrivals:  the best two again are the LOX-LH2 and nuclear,  but the propellant/payload ratios are starting to look rather unattractive for the NTO-MMH and even the LOX-LCH4.  Arrival is simply the more-demanding mission,  by a wide margin,  because the unladen burns come first. 

It would be easy to point at an inherent characteristic of the rocket equation,  as to why this outcome obtains,  if the velocity requirements could be summed into a single burn for these scenarios.  They cannot be,  because the laden and unladen weight statements are so different! 

Nevertheless,  that fundamental concept still applies:  there is a knee in the curve of deliverable rocket delta-vee versus added propellant mass,  that is not so apparent if you just look at mass ratio versus added propellant.  (One is adding tankage mass to the inert mass in this “adding-propellant” process,  and also holding payload mass constant.)  Where the delta vee produced is smaller than,  to about the same size as,  about 1.5 times the effective exhaust velocity,  adding propellant has a rapid effect to increase delta-vee capability.  Where the delta vee is larger than about 1.5 times the exhaust velocity,  adding a lot of propellant has little effect on delta-vee capability.  The curve has flattened!  See Figure W below.

Key here is that effective exhaust velocity is proportional to specific impulse (mostly set by the propellant choice,  and somewhat by the engine technology used),  while the mission itself sets the delta-vee required.   The more-demanding the mission,  the harder that pushes you to select the higher specific impulse propulsion.  Simple as that!  Propellant/payload reflects that truth fairly reliably,  for any sort of tug stage scenario.

We could get around that difficulty by the long-established approach of staging,  but that makes full reusability very difficult to achieve!  For a fully-reusable tug-assist system,  we really need the tugs to be one-stage.  That is what is required for a long-term sustainable system to mount interplanetary missions.  That sustainability is pretty much going to be driven by the logistics of supplying the propellants on-orbit to the tugs,  and for the interplanetary vehicles that they push as payloads.  Simple as that!

Figure X – Spreadsheet Images for NTO-MMH and LOX-LCH4 Tugs Used for Arrivals

Figure Y – Spreadsheet Images for LOX-LH2 and NERVA Tugs Used for Arrivals

Figure Z – Retrievable Payload Reduces When Departure-Sized Tugs Are Used For Arrivals

Figure W – “Knee-in-the-Curve” Effects with the Rocket Equation

Trump Again?

There is a joke circulating in Germany after former President Trump won our election.  See the first figure.  I find it rather telling,  myself. 

We elected the convicted felon instead of the former prosecutor.  We elected the adjudged sexual predator.  We elected the 6-time bankruptcy filer infamous for stiffing vendors,  to manage our national economy?  We elected the violator of our classified document laws,  to be commander-in-chief,  when we quite evidently  cannot trust him with classified materials,  or he would not have been indicted for it. 

We re-elected the only president we have ever had in all our national history,  who refused to peacefully transition power at the end of his first presidency,  instead trying to overturn it by every means available,  up to and including inciting an insurrection,  on Jan. 6,  2021.  

That is very evident stupidity on our part as a nation,  and that is the source of the joke in the figure! 

All of this has happened because far-right media sources now far outnumber the so-called "mainstream media" sources,  and those far-right sources are rife with disinformation and misinformation,  including propaganda from the Russians and other hostile nations.  These lies from those far-right sources are all that way-too-many-of-us ever encounter anymore!  And also quite evidently,  as a population overall,  we lack the critical thinking skills to know when we are being lied-to by these sources. 

Extremism is the real enemy here.  Far-right,  far-left,  religious,  all are pure evil!  I don’t see very many far-left extremists in the US anymore,  but I do see an alarmingly-growing number of far-right extremists.  The political spectrum is not the straight line everyone assumes.  It is,  in fact,  a circle,  with democracy on one side,  and dictatorship on the other,  and two different paths leading to the dictatorship side.

Both types of political extremism lead to exactly the same end:  a military-supported dictatorship,  as illustrated in the second figure.  Religious extremism can ally with either path.  It does not matter what “they” say,  it only matters what they do!  We've seen this for centuries now. 

A very serious problem here is a total lack of critical thinking ability on the part of a majority of the voting public.  They simply cannot tell when they are being lied to by their favorite sources!  Which is virtually all the time. 

That lack is the result of two generations (!!!) of dumbing-down public education with a low-ball standardized test,  and then tying school funding to its outcome,  which exerts enormous pressure to teach only to the test,  not the full curriculum.  Critical thinking is just not on that test,  as we have already seen. 

As a result,  the gene pool needs more than just a little chlorine now!

The election is over.  Trump won,  in the electoral college and in the popular vote!  Let me predict what is going to happen to you all,  as his second term unfolds.  It will not be what he and his team told you.  Not by a long shot!  But it will take significant time to unfold.  Why?  It just takes a long time for the dead dinosaur to fall over.

Mass deportations of undocumented aliens: 

Trump swears he wants to deport about 11 million undocumented aliens from this country.  He will certainly try to do it!  And if Congress backs him,  he will do it!  The more deportations,  the bigger the effects will be.  Just be aware that there is a time lag between action and effect.

Bear in mind that these people to be deported are mainly the harvesters of our food supply,  and the backbone of our construction industry.  By and large,  statistically,  they are actually more law-abiding than the majority of American citizens,  despite the lies you have been told about them,  in the right-wing media.  Yeah,  there’s exceptions,  just not very many.  Not very many at all.

These deportations will cripple the agricultural and construction sectors of our economy,  simply for lack of available labor.  Food and housing prices will rise drastically,  first because of a lack of supply,  then because the producers will have to drastically raise the wages they pay these workers,  in order to get American citizens to take these jobs. 

The result will be (1) economic depression from the supply-chain disruptions,  and (2) rampantly-high inflation,  because those costs will be passed on to the public in drastically-higher prices.  This will ripple all-across the economy.  It is inevitable.   It will happen!

Depression and inflation simultaneously:  we have not seen this disaster since the late 1970’s!

And a majority of you voted for this!

Tariffs on foreign imports,  largely from China,  but also possibly Mexico:

The majority of things that American consumers buy,  come from these two sources.  They come from there,  because those products are generally not produced within the US anymore.  We can argue about why that happened,  but it is a simple fact-of-life today!  Deal with it!

A tariff is a tax upon imported goods.  The importer has to pay that tax,  which increases his cost of doing business.  He will pass that added cost on to you,  the consumer,  as a price increase big enough to cover it,  if not even higher (which some term “greedflation”).  It is inevitable.  We’ve seen this passing-on of increased costs before!

Mr. Trump is talking about enormous tariffs,  anywhere from 10-or-20% to 100%.  He will attempt this!  That means enormous price increases for most of the things you buy!  And that means both supply chain disruptions,  leading to economic depression,  and large price increases,  leading to massive inflation.  Period!

Again,  this tariff policy will add greatly to the simultaneous disaster of depression and inflation caused by the mass deportations!  Our economy stands no chance!

 A majority of you voted for this!

 A climate change disaster is coming:

Almost to a man,  Trump and his political supporters and financial backers are anthropogenic climate change deniers.  Trump himself usually calls climate change “a hoax”.  That is far-right extremist dis/mis-information,  which is actually where he came by that belief.  Anthropogenic climate change is quite real,  and it is already here,  now.  We’ve been seeing it in action,  the last several years.  You are entitled to your own opinions about this,  but you are not entitled to your own “facts”!  Facts come from science,  not far-right media sources.

Trump will kill all the climate change-mitigating efforts of Biden,  and that will push the world over the hump of inevitable total disaster,  because American leadership on this issue is,  and always was,  critical!   Now that will stop.  No other very-powerful country has “bellied up to the bar” as much as we have,  on this.

The extreme weather events will get worse over the next very few years,  and within your lifetimes,  you will see a sudden sea level rise in the 3-6 meter (10-20 feet) range,  which is a total disaster,  not just for the US,  but for all of humanity!  Most of our critical and most valuable assets are within 1 meter (3 feet) of current sea level,  all around the world. 

Something like half the world’s population lives within 1 meter (3 feet) of current sea level!  Imagine the “immigration disaster” as these 4 billions go on the march across international borders looking for new places to live!  Illegal immigrants?  You ain’t seen nothin’ yet!  This will start wars!

But the majority of you voted for this,  too!

Pandemic health disasters are coming:

It seems rather likely that Trump will call upon Robert F. Kennedy,  Jr.,  to head the department of Health and Human Services.  RFK,  Jr.,  is a vaccine denier,  despite the science and the track record,  which actually means there is something mentally wrong with that man!  You can expect decreased availability of things like Covid and flu vaccines.  More people will sicken and die from these otherwise-preventable or reducible diseases.  You can also expect zero attention to fending-off the next pandemic!  Why?  Because that will require more vaccines!

We already have a serious vaccination problem in the US.  Rates of whooping cough and measles are on the rise,  despite there being very-effective vaccines for both.  We have allowed too many exceptions to the required-vaccine rules for public schools,  pure and simple!  RFK,  Jr.,  would likely make that much worse!   He says he won’t deny you vaccines,  but he won’t promote them.

There are many other possible pandemic threats out there.  So,  who is going to pre-emptively try to counter them?  Not vaccine-denier RFK,  Jr!  Something somewhere between the 1918 flu disaster,  and the 14^th century Black Death disaster,  is coming!  You will see it,  likely in Trump’s term as the 47^th president!

A majority of you voted for this!

You just elected your first dictator-for-life,  ending our democracy experiment:

You just elected a man who is quite old,  and already showing signs of age-related cognitive impairment,  but not yet as bad as Biden did,  during their 2024 debate.  Ignoring the risks of cognitive impairment,  Trump (if he lives that long) will not relinquish control at the end of his term after the 2028 election,  for the transition of Jan. 20,  2029! 

We’ve already seen this after the 2020 election,  regarding the Jan. 6,  2021 insurrection,  to prevent the Jan. 20,  2021 transition.  And note that he promised exactly that same behavior after the 2016 election,  if he lost!  So why would 2028/2029 be any different?

Maybe he will still be somewhat-functional at the end of his term as 47^th president,  and maybe not!  But if not,  there are plenty of Trump-wannabees to take his place as dictator.  None of them will willingly turn over power to the next elected president,  if we even have a next election at all! 

Look at what Trump did appointing federal judges and nominating candidates for the Supreme court.  Those candidates came from lists generated by far-right institutions,  which more-or-less guaranteed that they would do Trump’s bidding,  instead of following the law and the established rules.  That is right out of Adolf Hitler’s playbook for becoming the dictator of Germany in 1934 after his election to the Chancellorship in 1933. 

Example:  Trump appointee Aileen Cannon in Florida,  who gave Trump’s lawyers everything they asked for,  and all the delays they asked for,  up to and including trying to dismiss the federal classified documents case entirely,  which on the face of it,  was a slam-dunk conviction!  Back in the 70’s-to-90’s time frame,  if I had done with classified documents what Trump did at Mar A Lago,  I would still be jail today!

Now he has an immunity ruling from the Supreme Court that he and Mitch McConnell packed,  for anything he does “officially” as President.  Anything can be claimed to be “official”.  In effect,  he can no longer be held accountable for anything!  No matter how egregious the act!

Trump will pack all the important offices and institutions with underlings who will violate the law to do his bidding instead.  He will start with the Justice Department,  thus actually implementing the weaponization of it,   that he has long falsely accused Democrats of doing.  It won’t end there,  it extends up to and including sending the Army to capture all who oppose him.  Does that remind you of Germany circa 1935-1940?

Update 12-1-2024:  his cabinet selections have been not only loyalists who would violate the law for him,  but also incompetents and crackpots who would totally disrupt the institutions they were selected to lead.  And by using recess appointments,  the Senate has no say in this!  Disrupting the institutions makes them dysfunctional,  and Trump is going to point at a dysfunctional government to justify overthrowing it to install himself as dictator.  

You the majority voted for this,  too!

Ending the Ukraine-Russia war:

Trump promised to end this war “on day 1” of his presidency.  How?   Essentially by handing the Ukraine over to Putin.  No more support to Ukraine,  Ukraine cannot be a NATO member for some 20 years,  and no territory invaded and held by Russia,  will ever be anything but Russian territory.  That’s a lost war for Ukraine!  And a loss for all of us who supported Ukraine against Putin!

Trump wants to take the US out of NATO,  our only effective defense against Soviet Russia,  and now Putin’s Russia,  since its founding.  He sucked-up to our adversaries,  insulted our allies,  and threatened to renege on the NATO treaty!  Those are matters of the public record!  Yes,  that misbehavior got some more spending on defense from some of our allies,  but this is very most definitely NOT the way to go about doing that!  We need our allies!  Now more than ever!

Trump is already well-known to be an ardent admirer of Putin.  That makes him a puppet of Putin,  and thereby a traitor to US interests!  We saw this in his first term as president:  at the Helsinki conference,  where he publicly preferred Putin’s lies,  to the determinations of his own government’s various intelligence agencies.   You had apparently elected a traitor in 2016!  And that treasonous behavior hasn’t changed since.

What will happen when Trump hands Ukraine to Putin?  The far-right sources didn’t tell you that,  did they?  But I will!  It emboldens Putin to try to invade and reconquer the other former Soviet Republics,  most of which are now NATO allies.  Failing American involvement (because of Trump very likely reneging on the NATO treaty,  he has a history of threatening that),  that starts World War 3 in Europe!  It also emboldens Xi in China to try to invade and conquer Taiwan,  starting World War 3 in the Pacific.  Xi is just waiting to see Putin succeed,  before he embarks on his conquests.

Doesn’t matter whether World War 3 actually starts in Europe or the Pacific,  it will eventually go nuclear!  With utterly devastating loss and destruction in the US,  and throughout much of the world!   A disaster for the US and all the rest of humanity!

The majority of you voted for this!

What about Taiwan?

If Trump hands Ukraine to Putin,  Xi will invade Taiwan.  Period!  Most of your electronics are made in Taiwan.  That means both no more electronics for you,  and World War 3 in the Pacific!  Period,  end of issue.  And it will eventually go nuclear!

The majority of you voted for this!

Final remarks:

A totally-depressed economy with massive inflation,  chronic expensive weather disasters culminating in truly massive sea level rise within your lifetime,  pandemic health disasters coming,  a dictator you cannot get rid of,  and World War 3 going nuclear on us without any allies. 

The majority of you voted for all of this,  although you obviously thought he would bring prosperity and strength instead!  That’s NOT what he will bring you!  You were lied-to!

I hope the majority of you that voted for this,  are prepared to live with the consequences of your vote,  which are in turn the consequences of not knowing you have been lied-to by far-right extremists.