Author Topic: Help me plan my IAC 2017 conference  (Read 12823 times)

Online Lar

  • Fan boy at large
  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10641
  • Saw Gemini live on TV
  • A large LEGO storage facility ... in Michigan
  • Liked: 7507
  • Likes Given: 5275
Re: Help me plan my IAC 2017 conference
« Reply #20 on: 09/28/2017 05:34 PM »
A giant thank you to all the reporters bringing us great stuff from this conference. Your efforts at taking notes and transcribing are vastly appreciated!!!!
"I think it would be great to be born on Earth and to die on Mars. Just hopefully not at the point of impact." -Elon Musk
"We're a little bit like the dog who caught the bus" - Musk after CRS-8 S1 successfully landed on ASDS OCISLY

Offline mikelepage

Re: Help me plan my IAC 2017 conference
« Reply #21 on: 09/29/2017 01:08 AM »
Well done to our own Steven Pietrobon for his (very!) detailed study of an apollo-equivalent mission to the moon, performed with a single block II SLS.

Offline mikelepage

Re: Help me plan my IAC 2017 conference
« Reply #22 on: 09/29/2017 01:39 AM »
Also: for anyone else who is here at the conference, myself and Bernard (Azular) will be meeting straight after the SpaceX talk near the entrance to the exhibition hall.

Offline Azular

Re: Help me plan my IAC 2017 conference
« Reply #23 on: 09/29/2017 04:42 AM »
Code name is still BFR

Elon thinks they've figured out how to pay for it.

Have a smaller vehicle that will replace Falcon 9 and Falcon Heavy

Offline Azular

Re: Help me plan my IAC 2017 conference
« Reply #24 on: 09/29/2017 04:46 AM »
Test engine runs at 200 bar, production will be 250 bar and over time he thinks they could get to 300 bar

Offline Azular

Re: Help me plan my IAC 2017 conference
« Reply #25 on: 09/29/2017 04:53 AM »
BFR 9m

Offline Azular

Re: Help me plan my IAC 2017 conference
« Reply #26 on: 09/29/2017 04:58 AM »
First stage 31 raptors, ship 48m long, delta wing at the rear for pitch and yaw control. Pressurised volume 825 sq m

Offline Azular

Re: Help me plan my IAC 2017 conference
« Reply #27 on: 09/29/2017 05:01 AM »
240 tons CH4 860 TONS LOX

4 VAC,  2 SL raptors 250 bar,

Offline Azular

Re: Help me plan my IAC 2017 conference
« Reply #28 on: 09/29/2017 05:03 AM »
Ship and tanker dock at the rear

Offline mikelepage

Re: Help me plan my IAC 2017 conference
« Reply #29 on: 09/30/2017 01:07 AM »
Okay definitely planning to write up my notes for Thursday and Friday today at the airport or on my flight home, but first wanted to post this pic of the NSF'ers who met up after the Elon Musk talk.  It was great to finally meet some of you in person!

Also: The gala dinner was pretty amazing, but no news/nothing technical there.  Entertainment was a group of construction workers (there's a construction site next to the Adelaide Convention Centre) who came in wearing hi-vis (fluoro vests) over work clothing... turned out to be magnificent opera singers.  A very Australian way to finish!  Well done Adelaide!

Offline Steven Pietrobon

  • Member
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 16681
  • Adelaide, Australia
    • Steven Pietrobon's Space Archive
  • Liked: 5434
  • Likes Given: 680
Re: Help me plan my IAC 2017 conference
« Reply #30 on: 09/30/2017 02:13 AM »
Well done to our own Steven Pietrobon for his (very!) detailed study of an apollo-equivalent mission to the moon, performed with a single block II SLS.

Thanks Mike for taking this photo. The co-chair on the left is Buzz Aldrin's son Andy! Sorry for the late report. I was so tired last night that I went to bed at 8:30 pm! What an amazing day yesterday was. In the morning we had Lockheed Martin's presentation of their Mars Camp idea. They are proposing a "water based" economy. Water is brought to Mars Base Camp in low Mars orbit (LMO) and electrolysed into LH2 and LOX propellant. This is used for a single stage lander that lands on Mars and then goes back to LMO without requiring any ISRU propellant from the ground. A fully reusable heat shield with RCC edges and Titanium panels is used. Video below.



« Last Edit: 09/30/2017 02:18 AM by Steven Pietrobon »
Akin's Laws of Spacecraft Design #1:  Engineering is done with numbers.  Analysis without numbers is only an opinion.

Offline mikelepage

Re: Help me plan my IAC 2017 conference
« Reply #31 on: 09/30/2017 02:14 AM »
Thursday AM Notes:

Plenary 8: Big Space Data driving Sustainable and Economic Growth on Earth
Panel with reps from Geoscience Australia, Global Partnership for Sustainable Development Data (GPSDD), Sinergise, and Amazon Web services cloud program. 

Was about how to use Geospatial Earth observation data (“big” data) for better decision making (mainly demographic, agriculture and environmental interests).  Talking about how the Millenium development goals have now (2015 onwards) transitioned to “Sustainable development goals”.  Aim is to make data more dynamic, real-time and disaggregated.

Looking at Geoscience Australia’s Digital Earth Australia program (website): which has used big data to create temporal terrain maps for Australia at high resolution, with every landsat image over 30 years now available for free. Can track agriculture use in individual paddocks, or river outflow variations, etc, and looking to export program so whole world can benefit from Landsat images in this way.  Sinergise is also processing the Landsat images “Sentinel Hub Playground” which was a different algorithmic approach (didn’t really understand what they were doing tbh).  Amazon Web services is also in process of creating tools to better browse these types of big satellite data.

Session 3.4A Small Bodies Missions, Tech and Explotation
1) Roger Lenard Keynote:
Lots of generalities.  But asteroid prospecting needs to consist of three stages: 1) affordable detailed imaging, 2) excavation in situ 3) turn into useful material.  Some of the legal regime was improved under Obama, but not complete/large gaps in what is regulated.  Suggests the benefits of prospecting with impactor plus observer craft combinations.

2) Al Canguhuala (JPL) gave an update on Dawn @Ceres in place of Marc Rayman, with a brief review on the timeline: ’07 left Earth, ’09 Mars assist, ’11-‘12 Vesta, ’15 onwards at Ceres (also reviewed different orbital regimes used at Ceres).  Has been able to map each surface in colour, with stereo imagery and take numerous other measurements, including looking at mineral concentrations and searching for moons. 

The ion engine use has allowed the Dawn probe greatest the greatest cumulative dV of any craft in history.  Video simulation of how orbit insertion around Ceres was achieved – “orbit” with ion engines becomes a non-critical event.  Also looked at salts in Occator crater which are evaporated from water which reached the surface in response to the impact, which is estimated at single-digit millions of years old.

3) Final review of the Operations legacy of the Rosetta probe by Accomazzo.
Notes that Rosetta was actually the first craft to fly beyond Jupiter with solar power, and the first craft to undergo long-term (3 year) hibernation prior to the main mission.

Many outcomes learnt from the execution of such a long-term (10 year) mission.  Software was updatable –On OBCP (didn’t catch acronym – programs/sub-routines I assum?)  110 loaded on Rosetta at launch.  34 added during flight, and ~50% modified during flight in response to mission.  Prototyped and refined a highly flexible packet storage system for transfer of science data/telemetry.

Careful to manage the obsolescence of equipment and crew expertise over 10 years.  Ground station development was staggered over cruise phase.  Ground team were sent to work on other ESA missions or elsewhere while maintaining employment agreements, such that they were brought back without issue during mission critical phases.  Heavy emphasis on management of documentation, with an emphasis on pertinence, completeness, and conciseness so that the team could remember how things worked years later.

During science phase, found communicating weekly with probe was actually less work than less frequent communications (with a lot more to do each time).  Operationally things were kept to a weekly schedule for ease of team.  Trajectory planning was (almost) always Mondays, up-linking of instructions was (almost) always Thursdays.  Tried to minimise the use of scientific data for operational inputs, as this could disrupt the schedule which caused organisational issues.

What could have been done better was that Philae was treated as a payload (separate from operations at ESA) – and in Accomazzo’s opinion it would have been more efficient to “treat it as a second spacecraft”.

Moved to Global Networking Forum
4) Caught the end of a session on Space Law:
Tidbits: Mining operators in Deep Space will be obligated to provide their own ground stations/deep space network.  While states currently retain ownership of space junk, some suggestion that the law of the sea “right to salvage” should apply. 

There should be “safe zones” on the moon (eg 50km exclusion zones around Apollo landing sites), and laws regulating radio frequency bands may be most analogous when generating regulations for use of particular zones of space/orbital regimes.

5) Growth challenges of Space Startups: Role of public and private investors.
Some repetition of things seen earlier in my notes such as how entrepreneurs spend too much time talking to Venture Capitalists (VCs) about the technology, and not enough talking about the business plan.  Think of the minimum viable product first… but make sure you think of the “minimum viable transaction” soon after.

Real emphasis (from Collective VC Australia) that companies should try to bootstrap and grow organically by looking for projects that don’t require exchange of equity.  VC is for “step-change” operations. i.e. To scale up once the business is already viable.

Q&A about a “space bubble”? Possible, because lots of investors are not knowledgeable about space and are in for the bandwagon effect.  If 2-3 big companies were to have several big failures or go bankrupt in quick succession you could see a lot of investors get spooked.

Also, don’t be afraid to pivot the company in response to a real change in market conditions.  Investors will support wise changes, just not erratic-ness.

Offline Steven Pietrobon

  • Member
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 16681
  • Adelaide, Australia
    • Steven Pietrobon's Space Archive
  • Liked: 5434
  • Likes Given: 680
Re: Help me plan my IAC 2017 conference
« Reply #32 on: 09/30/2017 02:51 AM »
Then it was off to my session in Hall O. My presentation was right after a NASA presentation on SLS, so it was pretty tough act to follow. I hope I did OK. The last presentation was one by Equatorial Launch Australia, hoping to have sounding rockets and launch vehicles launching from the Arnhem Space Centre, Northern Territory over the Gulf of Carpentaria. They are at 12.5º South and have strong support from the traditional land owners.

The VIPs were then corralled in Rooms E where we entered from the Eastern side. Everybody was let in very slowly, so it took about an hour to fill the room. I was sitting about four rows from the front of the stage. I was very pleased that BFR (which now seems to be the official name) would be doing satellites, ISS, Moon and Mars. Not so sure that a 9 m, 31 engine and 4400 t vehicle with 150 t LEO payload is the right vehicle for sending 6 t communications satellites to GEO.

We then met up with other NSF attendees in Hall G. The last event for me was the closing ceremony where various awards were presented and the IAF flag handed over to the next IAC in Bremen, Germany.
Akin's Laws of Spacecraft Design #1:  Engineering is done with numbers.  Analysis without numbers is only an opinion.

Offline Steven Pietrobon

  • Member
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 16681
  • Adelaide, Australia
    • Steven Pietrobon's Space Archive
  • Liked: 5434
  • Likes Given: 680
Re: Help me plan my IAC 2017 conference
« Reply #33 on: 09/30/2017 02:56 AM »
Here are some more photos I took on Thursday.
Akin's Laws of Spacecraft Design #1:  Engineering is done with numbers.  Analysis without numbers is only an opinion.

Offline Steven Pietrobon

  • Member
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 16681
  • Adelaide, Australia
    • Steven Pietrobon's Space Archive
  • Liked: 5434
  • Likes Given: 680
Re: Help me plan my IAC 2017 conference
« Reply #34 on: 09/30/2017 03:00 AM »
Wenesday and Thursday highlight videos.



Akin's Laws of Spacecraft Design #1:  Engineering is done with numbers.  Analysis without numbers is only an opinion.

Offline savuporo

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5155
  • Liked: 983
  • Likes Given: 343
Re: Help me plan my IAC 2017 conference
« Reply #35 on: 09/30/2017 09:22 PM »
Long videos but well worth watching. Leaves a very optimistic feel about the state of the space industry, lots of new organizations, new generations of young talent.

Two key takeaways: smallsats, and Australia is very much on the map in space technology.

Orion - the first and only manned not-too-deep-space craft

Offline mikelepage

Re: Help me plan my IAC 2017 conference
« Reply #36 on: 10/02/2017 03:48 PM »
Thursday PM notes

Interactive Presentations (instead of Plenary):
All the extra presentations that didn’t get time in the technical sessions were put into this session, where presenters (each one allocated to one of an array of something like 40 screens – probably another 400 presentations in all) worked their way through 4 page pdfs.  I didn’t get to spend much time or take notes for this, but there were a great number of students and young professionals, contributing their own studies/concepts.

Session 6.6 Active Debris Removal

Most of the active debris removal proposals presented at the conference involved a chaser craft (often some variant on a cubesat), which may or may not be deployed from a more capable mothership, matching velocities with a target piece of debris tracked using visual and/or LIDAR means.

Then, using some kind of attachment mechanism (proposals included mechanical grippers, mechanical caging/netting solutions, chemical glue, magnetic attachment, electro-adhesion and harpoons), the chaser craft attaches itself to debris.  A number of proposals had reaction wheels as part of the chaser craft, with the aim to “de-tumble” the debris.

Methods to deorbit the debris included SEP (one used an Iodine propellant SEP system, that while less efficient was much cheaper), electro-dynamic tethers, or a drag augmentation sail (Lightsail solar-sail type deployment).

Upcoming demo ADR mission “Remove Debris” will launch on SpaceX Dragon in January 2018 and subsequently deploy from ISS through JEM module, including cubesat “test debris” which will trial visual/LIDAR tracking, net and harpoon deployment, and a drag augmentation sail.

There was also a presentation by Doris Grosse of SERC at the Australian National Uni, detailing how they plan to take adaptive optics techniques normally used to create sharp ground-based telescope imagery, and use them to focus a medium-to-high power laser on debris, resulting in photon pressure (not powerful enough to ablate) which will perturb debris orbits for collision avoidance (not powerful enough to deorbit, either).

Moved to Session C1.7 Mission Design, Operations and Optimization

 “Dust Environment Models for Asteroid Surface”, by K Nichols, modelled the Lunar Horizon glow and the dust ponds on Eros. Aiming to incorporate solar radiation pressure and electrostatic effects to explain the disconnect between previous models and the observations of dust on asteroids.  This work was able to generate a much better approximation of how particles are perturbed in orbits where the effect of gravity and electrostatic/solar radiation pressure all have similarly significant effects. 

Very cool and relevant for manned work at asteroids: while tiny particles disturbed at surface of small asteroids will likely achieve escape velocity, mid sized particles most likely to affect machine joints, astronaut suits etc are of significant concern.  Model suggested working at or near the sunset terminator line of the asteroid was most likely to prevent these larger particles from achieving orbit due to assists from non-gravity effects.

“Planetary Defence Optimal asteroid deflections” modelled a couple of scenarios for using an impactor to shift an Earth-bound asteroid.  Remembering that asteroid velocities can be 60km/s relative to sun, and the most deltaV we can add is on the order of cm/s, time may be of the essence when designing a planetary defence mission.  Looking at the trade offs between doing a heavy n-body propagation for trajectory analysis (high fidelity/computationally intensive), versus new method of doing a simpler Keplerian propagation but making certain adjustments to compensate.

Compared the new modelling method to the heavy n-body method with a pair of impact scenarios (fictitious 100m and 1000m asteroids to impact in 2027) and found that it was sufficiently accurate to be useful for mission planning.

Highlight lecture 2: The Great Barrier Reef: Assessing its health from space.
Probably the most depressing talk of the entire conference.  As an economic asset the GBR is responsible for 6.4 billion/year in Australian tourism, supports 64,000 jobs, and has had an estimated worth of 56 billion dollars, yet coral cover has declined to 50% over 1985-2012.  The largest part of this is from cyclones/hurricanes, which have a two-fold effect: firstly the direct impact from wind/high seas, and secondly the nutrient load that comes with torrential rain on agricultural land resulting in fertilizer/derivatives washing onto the reef.

1985-2012: Estimated that 48% of the coral cover loss is from 12 major cyclones in that time, 42% from the crown of thorns outbreak induced by high agricultural runoff, and 10% directly from coral bleaching as a result of the 1 degree C rise in ocean temperatures.  “Coral cores” dating back ~300 years have failed to detect coral bleaching events prior to 1980s, yet there have been several since then, including the back-to-back bleaching events of 2016-17, which has destroyed 90%+ of the previously pristine northern third of the reef  (the one area unaffected by the agricultural runoff).

Issued a request to space industry to provide better, higher-resolution imagery of the reef to track coral bleaching, and for satellites capable of providing better assistance to farming practice – so they can use less fertilizer, more efficiently, thereby causing less runoff.  Marine Science Australia has a 35 year plan with 139 actions to be taken.

Offline mikelepage

Re: Help me plan my IAC 2017 conference
« Reply #37 on: 10/05/2017 10:07 AM »
Friday AM notes (finally!):

Late Breaking News.  Mars Base Camp proposal launch by Lockheed Martin

Much of this will have been reported elsewhere by now, but this did seem to be a natural evolution of the modules Lockheed is working on for the DSG, with duplication of everything for redundancy, to be placed in Mars orbit, including central crew modules shielded by hydrogen/oxygen propellant tanks for radiation protection.

The basic premise was that sticking to Hydrolox enables landers of a given size to have 33% more delta-V capability than Methalox, which enables multiple “sortie” missions from Mars orbit, as long as water is available.  Hydrolox as rocket propellant leverages “water economy”, assuming that water can be extracted in many places, (especially/hopefully) Phobos.  Having extractable water on Phobos would enable a robust sortie program with telerobotically-operated rovers scouting for human missions at sites all over Mars surface, which would enable science at a high frequency.

By having 2x 4-crew landers that can go anywhere on Mars surface and back without ISRU, the level of safety/redundancy is high.  Unlike craft on direct-entry trajectories, these landers can abort the landing before even touching down if conditions turn averse.  Also, if one lander breaks down on the surface, the other can go to rescue the crew.

When asked about SpaceX’s methalox architecture, the LM representatives were quite positive; saying a diversity of propellant systems makes the whole Mars program even more robust.  A LM basecamp in orbit with Phobos water ISRU, plus a SpaceX base with ISRU on the ground can only make things safer.

Session D2.8/A5.4 Joint Session: Space Transportation Solutions for Deep Space Missions:

1&2) Representatives from China National Uni of Defence tech, and China academy of launch vehicle tech gave a summary of proposals (and CNSA plans?) for 1) a manned cis-lunar transport system, and 2) lox depots in LEO and (eventually) EML1.  Although some questions about translation, I think they basically wanted to have a Apollo-style lunar lander going from lunar surface to low lunar orbit and back, and transiting a manned craft from LEO to LLO and back.  The depot in LEO seemed intended to support these kinds of missions, whilst the EML1 depot was intended to support deep space operations.

3) Masson from CNES gave a summary of Arianne 6 developments, which will start 40% cheaper than Arianne 5, includes 62 & 64 variants, and could do 3 and 8 ton to EML1 respectively.  He then moved onto 3 types of tugs that they could launch using Arianne 6 family: a chemical “kick” stage, solar electric propulsion, and nuclear electric propulsion.  He didn’t spend much time on the chemical tug, other than to  state it was a “Boreas” hydrolox engine.

The solar electric tug had a 60kW solar array, and 6 hall thrusters (each 20kW nominal but used at 12.5kW), using Xenon.  Enabled 5-year sample return mission from Mars, with 0.5 ton payload.

The “Democritos” nuclear electric propulsion received the most time in the presentation, with the case study including a 3.3MW Nuclear core. Potential uses include deviating asteroids and putting larger payloads to Mars/Jupiter/Saturn.  Using Hall or ion grid thrusters, it could move 7 ton to Mars in 250 days (Hall thrusters @2500s), or 11-17ton to Mars in 360-500 days (Grid ion thrusters at 4000-7000s).  If using 7000s thrusters, could move 8 ton to Saturn in 3 years.

4) Talk by Steve Creech, the Spacecraft payloads element manager for SLS:

Block 1B (crew/cargo) is expected as early as 2022, Block 2 as early as 2028.  Block 1B’s cargo variant will be used for Europa clipper.

Talk included many photos of booster and core stage progress, especially for EM1 mission where booster segments are complete and core stage has completed all major welds.  Engines are currently being shipped for assembly and are soon to be hot-fired at Stennis.  Booster segments and core stage welds for EM2 have commenced.

Talking up the advantages of the universal stage adapter, which can take 8m payloads suitable for Orion docking and will be likely be used for DSG elements. Also emphasised the ability to do direct injection for Europa clipper on block 1B.  Noted the potential for a Europa lander follow-up mission to have a 16-ton payload to Europa by using block 1B and inner-solar system flybys.

5) Talk by our own Steve Pietrobon. Very detailed study of an Apollo-analogue mission to moon using a single SLS block II.  Must admit I didn’t take notes for this one because I was aiming to get the photo (posted above), but there were definitely a few NASA heads in the audience who would have been interested in the costings.  Good work!

Final session A1.8: Biology in Space
(glad I made it to at least some of every technical session!!!)

Probably my favourite session of the entire conference – this is right down my alley as an immunologist, and there were plenty of questions that came to mind!  This included an interesting discussion on the relative uses of “simulated” microgravity, with a number of us questioning the premise that simply keeping cell cultures in motion is in any way equivalent to true microgravity.

1) Because of the difficulty of gaining access to space, especially for long-term studies, this group used the LSMMG system for rotating suspension cultures of medically relevant bacteria.  Specifically they studied the genetics of E Coli for 1000 generations (1 month) in sim microgravity, followed by 300 generations back in ordinary culture, to determine if changes were as a result of acclimation (changes go away when “gravity” returns) versus adaptation (changes remain).

Found 237 gene mutations, which resulted in the gene up-regulating expression, and another 120 gene mutations, which resulted in the gene down-regulating expression.  Up-regulated genes were associated with biofilm formation, increased protein transport mechanisms, increased stress proteins and increased virulence, whilst down-regulated genes were associated with cellular mobility mechanisms.  They found these mutations persisted after 300g generations back in lab, and concluded that bacterial mutations in response to microgravity are in face adaptation, not just acclimation.

2) The second group used a different microgravity simulator to look at human endothelial cells, using a variety of cellular assay methods.  Interestingly, they found that the microgravity itself did not stimulate production of connective tissue protein they used as an outcome measure, however it did enhance activation of endothelial cells, which would produce more of the connective tissue protein in response to a particular immune cytokine (TNFalpha).  Basically, the cells were more primed to respond to any immune signal as a result of microgravity, but the microgravity effect only appeared in combination with other stimuli.  Lots of interacting factors at work here. 

3) The third group presented a study of transcription factor genes in mice that spent 37 days on ISS.  These flight mice showed significant demethylation as compared to controls.  Methylation of genes is commonly understood to cause the epigenetic effects that have been shown to control gene expression over generations.  That means there is a correlation between the expression of your genes and the conditions in which the sperm and egg that became you, formed (i.e. the expression of your genes is affected by your parent’s health at two time points: your father’s health about 9 months before you were born, and your mother’s health at the time her eggs were forming – about 6 months before she was born).

The fact that we’re seeing demethylation effects on genes in mice who spent 37 days on ISS suggests that there will be effects from the space environment that appear one to two generations after the first trip to orbit.

4) Elizabeth Blaber from NASA Ames presented a really interesting talk on the effects of spaceflight on bone and cartilage, examining the bones of rodents from several studies that went to the space station.

Lots of detail here: https://iafastro.directory/iac/paper/id/41432/abstract-pdf/IAC-17,A1,8,6,x41432.brief.pdf?2017-03-23.11:12:59

but talk had a lot of imagery, demonstrating dramatic losses of bone density, bone structure, and cartilage most comparable to a rapid onset, stage 4/5 osteoarthritic patients (who are usually in old age and have taken years to develop the condition).  The reason we don’t see equivalent bone losses in astronauts is because of exercise regimes, however there is some question as to whether the quality of bone (“trabecular number”) is maintained even with exercise, since rodents returned to Earth regained bone density, but not bone quality.

5)  Lastly Cora Thiel of the Uni Zurich presented work with immune cell lines which were kept on the ISS and analysed in other microgravity environments such as parabolic flights. 

There is a reasonable question as to whether immune affects of microgravity are really a problem, since we have no severely damaged astronauts, and not much in the way of allergy/infections…

In experiment 1, macrophage culture was kept in a centrifuge on ISS, with a live, continuous data download of outcome measures as culture was stepped down (or up) in 0.1xg steps over 5 hours.  Interesting note: the “threshold” for measures showed that the cells only began producing (/stopped producing) stress hormones at a level of 0.3-0.5 xg, which to my knowledge is the first ever attempt to determine what that threshold level of gravity might be.  The counter to this was communicated to me by Elizabeth Blaber after the session – who suggested that partial weight studies with mice (partially held up by harnesses so they only held some of their weight) showed that detrimental effects of partial gravity on bones began as soon as the “gravity” was less than 1xg.

The various cultures were also used to compare outcome measures when in parabolic flight (or on-board a sounding rocket), versus simulated microgravity systems mentioned above.  Noted a number of outcomes that were seen in real microgravity, but were not replicated by the simulated microgravity systems.

These flights also showed that these outcome measures (gene expression changes not seen in simulated microgravity) were responding to the lack of gravity almost instantaneously (<1 second), while others (n=279) appeared after 20 seconds, and still others (n=1873) had appeared after 300 seconds.

Basically, the cells of the immune system can tell the difference between real microgravity and lab-based simulators, and start changing their behaviour within seconds of exposure, even if harmful macro effects take much longer to manifest.

Then it was over to Global Networking Forum: Elon Musk presenting Mars plan
Y’all saw this one right? I didn’t take notes for this because it seemed rather pointless, and I’ve posted my opinions in discussions elsewhere.

***

All in all it was an absolutely fantastic mix of science, engineering, and entrepreneurial minds, and I enjoyed it immensely.  I hope you all found these notes interesting, and I invite you to check out the Exodus Space Systems FB page and website if you’re interested in finding out what I’m working on now.

Offline Steven Pietrobon

  • Member
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 16681
  • Adelaide, Australia
    • Steven Pietrobon's Space Archive
  • Liked: 5434
  • Likes Given: 680
Re: Help me plan my IAC 2017 conference
« Reply #38 on: 10/10/2017 07:33 AM »
One of the chairs took this photo of me during my presentation.
Akin's Laws of Spacecraft Design #1:  Engineering is done with numbers.  Analysis without numbers is only an opinion.

Tags: