Well, if you put your rotating station in a cycler orbit, then you don't have the problem in the first place of people getting weak from interplanetary travel in zero g.
Small problem people who advocate cyclers totally miss: interplanetary orbits are inconvenient and rendezvousing in them is a risky idea, as in if you 'miss' your small transfer spacecraft becomes your only spacecraft for the remainder of trip.
Quote from: redliox on 06/05/2016 06:41 pmSmall problem people who advocate cyclers totally miss: interplanetary orbits are inconvenient and rendezvousing in them is a risky idea, as in if you 'miss' your small transfer spacecraft becomes your only spacecraft for the remainder of trip. Or, perhaps they just assume the reliability of a rendezvous will increase in the future. Doesn't seem terribly unreasonable, considering we've landed a rocket on propulsion now.
Quote from: KristianAndresen on 06/05/2016 07:27 pmQuote from: redliox on 06/05/2016 06:41 pmSmall problem people who advocate cyclers totally miss: interplanetary orbits are inconvenient and rendezvousing in them is a risky idea, as in if you 'miss' your small transfer spacecraft becomes your only spacecraft for the remainder of trip. Or, perhaps they just assume the reliability of a rendezvous will increase in the future. Doesn't seem terribly unreasonable, considering we've landed a rocket on propulsion now.It's not an avionics problem, it's a hardware responsiveness and reliability problem. Everything needs to throttle exactly when you need it.
Currently, the astronauts from ISS and later from interplanetary missions directly plunge from zero-g to 1g (with a brief period of multiple gs during descent). And then they have to recover in our 1g environment, which is quite difficult.Since a lot of plans involve the Exploration Gateway at EML1 or 2 for departure and return (return from Mars, dock with with EG, and enter an Orion Spacecraft), how about setting a rotating spacestation up, where long-term zero-g astronauts can recover by incrementially raising the gravity.A typical mission profile would be: Astronauts who spent a longer time in zero-g step onto the 0.1g level, start training, then the go to the next level, and so on, until they reach the 1g-level. My hope is, that such an incremental way allows them to recover faster than directly going to 1g, as it is done now.The station itself could be quite simple in the beginning, but advance further and further.A central node for docking and zero-g environment (but spinning), and two theters radially extending. One of them just has a counter weight on the end (maybe a tank or something like this), and ion engines. The other theter is long (at least 500m) and has a habitat module at its end, and ion engines too. The astronauts enter that module, and the station slowly starts spinning. A cable climber can move cargo and crew from the node to the hab module at the end.The downside would be, that this configuration would just allow one level of gravity at the same time. And it needs fuel.Later, when the station needs more capabilites, they can add more hab modules, at least 10m apart from each other (in the outer region, they require much more). The connections between the habitats could be some BEAM-like tube (a flexibly expandable structure, connecting 2 distant modules) with a ladder, cables, ropes and pipes inside (maybe even an elevator cabin). This structure would allow docking at the node, and then gradually step down into the gravity well, until 1g is reached. The structure would just stop or slow down for maintenance (EVA in the 1g-area, and something happens to the astronauts theter... that would result in an astronaut leaving the station quite rapidly).Maybe, they could use a similar station in orbit around Mars for training before they go down to the surface. Or in orbit around asteroids, just to have an environment with some sort of gravity (doesn't need to be a full g).ideas, suggestions?
refer to Rober Zubrin's idea of using a spent stage on a tether to counterweight a rotating ship.
Quote from: redliox on 06/05/2016 06:41 pmSmall problem people who advocate cyclers totally miss: interplanetary orbits are inconvenient and rendezvousing in them is a risky idea, as in if you 'miss' your small transfer spacecraft becomes your only spacecraft for the remainder of trip.How the frak do you "miss"? What scenario would put you on trajectory to Mars, but not allow rendezvous with a cycler on the same trajectory?If you miss the cycler trajectory, then by definition you are not heading to Mars. You're heading randomly into deep space. You're dead. No different than if you launched on an all-in-one Mars mission that suffered a similar failure.
Uh... unless I'm misremembering, it's not the same trajectory. Depending on which cycler architecture you're using, the cycler itself does not match velocities with Earth and/or Mars,
Currently, the astronauts from ISS and later from interplanetary missions directly plunge from zero-g to 1g (with a brief period of multiple gs during descent). And then they have to recover in our 1g environment, which is quite difficult.<snip>ideas, suggestions?
Currently, the astronauts from ISS and later from interplanetary missions directly plunge from zero-g to 1g (with a brief period of multiple gs during descent). And then they have to recover in our 1g environment, which is quite difficult.Since a lot of plans involve the Exploration Gateway at EML1 or 2 for departure and return (return from Mars, dock with with EG, and enter an Orion Spacecraft), how about setting a rotating spacestation up, where long-term zero-g astronauts can recover by incrementially raising the gravity.
The station itself could be quite simple in the beginning, but advance further and further.
I've taken to calling artificial gravity stations beyond LEO a "refuge", since I see them as a place that inhabitants on Mars would be able to visit to enjoy a higher gravity (i.e. birth-normal) environment. No doubt that would also be rehabilitation, just that I think of it as a refuge.And if you have the ability to retain some of your 1G physical attributes while at Mars, then that lessens the need for a rehab facility in space near Earth. Or at least shortens the amount of rehab time.{snip}
The cabin can be a rover with the wheels taken off. The counterweight can be local stone. Add electric motor at the centre and metal beams to support the weight.
Quote from: A_M_Swallow on 06/09/2016 08:33 pmThe cabin can be a rover with the wheels taken off. The counterweight can be local stone. Add electric motor at the centre and metal beams to support the weight.Why take the wheels off? Banked track. No hub, no counterweight. 6RPM/1g is only 80kmh/50mph.Too easy.{snip}