Realistic, near-term, rotating Space Station

[Chris Bergin]

Be civil or lose your post. Real simple.

[punder]

NASA's interest in AG is well known, and more serious than your "ghetto" posts insinuate.

Respectfully disagree. Real institutional interest = dollars. Over the entire history of NASA, there hasn't been enough money thrown at AG to equal one day's work on SLS.

Okay, that's just a WAG. But true in spirit.   

[LMT]

NASA's interest in AG is well known, and more serious than your "ghetto" posts insinuate.

Respectfully disagree. Real institutional interest = dollars. Over the entire history of NASA, there hasn't been enough money thrown at AG to equal one day's work on SLS.

Okay, that's just a WAG. But true in spirit.   

Oh, I don't know what the cumulative $ would be myself, going all the way back.  But they have at least taken the lead recently, as above, and also in forging an "international roadmap for artificial gravity research". 

That took initiative.



As for SLS, well...  [shrugs]

[Paul451]

NASA's interest in AG is well known, and more serious than your "ghetto" posts insinuate.

Respectfully disagree. Real institutional interest = dollars. Over the entire history of NASA, there hasn't been enough money thrown at AG to equal one day's work on SLS.
Okay, that's just a WAG. But true in spirit.

I agree, as far as NASA interest goes. Interest exists at the "bottom" of the agency, and gets more and more opposed as you climb.

However, NASA isn't the only agency. JAXA has clearly had a long term interest in AG research. And judging by the roadmap posted by LMT, JAXA and ESA are the only agencies pushing AG research on ISS. Unless the RCF gets out of SBIR hell, the only exception at NASA is the bed-rest guys. (Again, interest at the bottom.)

If launch price drops hard, and commercial crew not only flies but is genuinely broadly available, there might be a chance to push for a JAXA-led, joint-ESA, free-flying human-tended animal facility in the reasonable near-term. (Of course, then you're facing their own leadership's nationalism over launcher allocation. Flying on US launchers for such a signature mission might be verboten.)

[LMT]

Interest exists at the "bottom" of the agency, and gets more and more opposed as you climb.

Opposition <> international leadership.

Are there some particular recent NASA statements to make plain the supposed "ladder of opposition" to AG research?

[Paul451]

Interest exists at the "bottom" of the agency, and gets more and more opposed as you climb.

Opposition <> international leadership.

Well, yeah. Hence the paper you quoted didn't mention NASA's "international leadership" in AG research at all.

[LMT]

Interest exists at the "bottom" of the agency, and gets more and more opposed as you climb.

Opposition <> international leadership.

Well, yeah. Hence the paper you quoted didn't mention NASA's "international leadership" in AG research at all.

?

The development of an international roadmap for AG research was recommended during a workshop on “Research and Operational Considerations for Artificial Gravity Countermeasures” what was held at NASA Ames Research Center in February 2014.  Roadmaps effectively translate abstract needs and concepts into concrete research activities that specify deliverables and the resources necessary to make progress in a timely fashion.  A coordinated AG roadmap will provide information for the space vehicle designers, mission planners, and managers regarding AG requirements for a manned mission to Mars.  It will also provide a framework that facilitates collaboration using the full range of available AG facilities worldwide. To this end, NASA organized a workshop in February 2016 in Galveston, Texas, and invited representatives from NASA and from space agencies of France, Germany, Europe and Japan, as well as scientists who were actively involved in AG research.

International leadership.  Wouldn't happen if "opposition" were as you imagine. 

--

SLS, ITS, AG

Last year SLS got $2.1B.  The cost is under Congressional scrutiny of course.  If / when Congress terminates SLS and buys into SpaceX ITS, some of the SLS budget should be freed for use elsewhere. 

In the event, it'll be interesting to see if and how NASA AG research and other deep-space research is redesigned / upgraded for ITS.  For example, one wonders how NASA might integrate a Turbolift, or perhaps its 5-m DSH centrifuge, into ITS.

Or would they bother with such retrofits, when ITS spacecraft could themselves be modified for long-duration AG experiment, as rotating space stations?

One imagines spirited professional debate over the new AG roadmap possibilities.

[Paul451]

Interest exists at the "bottom" of the agency, and gets more and more opposed as you climb.

Opposition <> international leadership.

Well, yeah. Hence the paper you quoted didn't mention NASA's "international leadership" in AG research at all.

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41526-017-0034-8
[...]
International leadership.  Wouldn't happen if "opposition" were as you imagine.

You are reading too much into a single workshop. None of the NASA-side participants were or are in leadership positions. And not a single NASA-side recommendation has been acted on. For example, the current "Human Research Roadmap" has not been altered to include the proposed NASA studies. (For example: The only partial-g research I can find (1/6g bedrest analogue) is marked, "N/A-Closed. Formerly active task that was stopped before its completion date due to deselection, descoping, reorganization etc." In spite of the Presidential directive to return to the moon.)

Four years since the workshop, nothing within NASA has been acted on. JAXA and ESA are still funding AG research, NASA isn't. (Outside of SBIR. Which often gets away with funding things that have no "demand" anywhere else in the agency. Again, interest at the bottom, not at the top.)

[edit: fixed the link]

[LMT]

The only partial-g research I can find...

The roadmap tasks aren't hidden; info can be found. 

If you want to grade researchers' progress down that road [reason?] take time to find the status of each task.  Don't extrapolate from blank pages.

Also you linked a PR post-it board, not an actual publication.   

[Paul451]

For some reason the link I pasted was to the wrong page. (Weirdly, I didn't actually go to the page that ended up linked.)

https://humanresearchroadmap.nasa.gov/explore/ is the Human Research Roadmap that I referred to.

I'll change the link in me previous post.

Again, the only AG research that exists in NASA's Human Research Program is a Lunar-analogue bed-rest study that was never funded and never carried out. Everything other piece of funded AG research is JAXA/ESA.

[LMT]

the only AG research that exists in NASA's Human Research Program is a Lunar-analogue bed-rest study that was never funded and never carried out

That's just repetition, still incorrect.  For example re: "bed-rest study": HRP completed such a study last year, in conjunction with an SRC study.  All in alignment with the AG roadmap. 

Explore the roadmap tasks to get the real story.

Introduction: Intermittent artificial gravity (AG) treatments may reduce bone, muscle, and cardiovascular deconditioning during prolonged space flight; however, the effects of repeated centrifugation on central processing of vestibular information remain unknown. This study investigated the effects of one intermittent AG prescription on balance control and neuromotor reflex function in a ground-based study of subjects exposed to bed rest. Methods: Fifteen male volunteers were exposed to 21 days of 6° head-down-tilt (HDT) bed rest (BR) to simulate some of the effects of space flight. Eight were treated with daily 1 h AG exposures aboard a short radius centrifuge that provided 1-g footward loading at heart level. The other seven served as control subjects. Balance control was assessed using a computerized dynamic posturography (CDP) protocol modified by adding low frequency pitch-plane head movements. Neuromotor reflex function was assessed using tendon (MSR) and functional stretch reflex (FSR) data collected from the triceps surae muscle group. Results: CDP performance was degraded by BR in both groups, but was unaffected by AG. BR also degraded MSR and FSR functions in both groups, but AG blunted the decrement in MSR. Conclusion: This AG prescription had little functionally relevant effect on balance control, but may have had some salutary effect on neuromotor reflexes.

Refs.

Reschke, M. F., & Paloski, W. H. (2017). Effects of bed rest and the use of intermittent centrifugation to protect human balance and neuromotor reflexes. Human Physiology, 43(5), 549-556.

[punder]

The only partial-g research I can find...

The roadmap tasks aren't hidden; info can be found. 

If you want to grade researchers' progress down that road [reason?] take time to find the status of each task.  Don't extrapolate from blank pages.

Also you linked a PR post-it board, not an actual publication.   

Truly, I share your enthusiasm for AG. It's critically important, if we want to populate the Solar System, that we understand the full effects spectrum, from zero to 1g and more.

But your faith in NASA, in this regard, is misplaced, and you are grasping at straws in the vast Monsanto wheatfield of NASA funding priorities. (heh. I amuse myself.) Sure, tiny enclaves within the agency are looking at AG. Other tiny enclaves are looking at Mach Effect propulsion, morphing robots around Neptune, and beamed interstellar propulsion. All are there, but each is about as important to NASA as replacement cupholder sales are to Toyota.

It's up to someone else to conduct the experiment, one way or another.

[LMT]

Truly, I share your enthusiasm for AG. It's critically important, if we want to populate the Solar System, that we understand the full effects spectrum, from zero to 1g and more.

But your faith in NASA, in this regard, is misplaced, and you are grasping at straws in the vast Monsanto wheatfield of NASA funding priorities. (heh. I amuse myself.) Sure, tiny enclaves within the agency are looking at AG. Other tiny enclaves are looking at Mach Effect propulsion, morphing robots around Neptune, and beamed interstellar propulsion. All are there, but each is about as important to NASA as replacement cupholder sales are to Toyota.

It's up to someone else to conduct the experiment, one way or another.

Are you implying that a U.S. federal agency is unfocused, and does not prioritize the research you consider critically important? 

That's a surprising insinuation, because correct prioritization...

"would be greaaaaaaat."

--

Unlike a few people on the internet, I give credit where it's due.  NASA created an international AG roadmap, for example, and deserves credit for it.  And as you should know, they are actually walking with partners down that road, producing agreed research, somehow. 

So it's foolish to assert as others have, that NASA has "zero interest" in AG, or that the roadmap research "was never carried out".  That's not giving credit, and just... wasting bits.

--

- Does NASA have a rotating space station?  No.

- Does NASA need a rotating space station?  Almost certainly, now that long-duration cislunar+ missions are on radar.

- Is NASA saving a place in heaven's budget for an ITS best-value, Richie-class wonder-station, once the ravenous SLS program dies?  Ah, now you tell me, punder.  (And bring your best rumors.)

[Coastal Ron]

Unlike a few people on the internet, I give credit where it's due.  NASA created an international AG roadmap, for example, and deserves credit for it.  And as you should know, they are actually walking with partners down that road, producing agreed research, somehow. 

So it's foolish to assert as others have, that NASA has "zero interest" in AG, or that the roadmap research "was never carried out".  That's not giving credit, and just... wasting bits.

NASA is an organization of over 17,000 people spread across 10 different NASA field centers. And many of those 17,000 people are involved in pure research type stuff, which no doubt includes artificial gravity. So is it surprising that there are people in NASA working on artificial gravity? No, not surprising.

However from a political standpoint efforts are not visible unless they have a budget line item. And so far artificial gravity does not have a budget line item

- Does NASA need a rotating space station?  Almost certainly, now that long-duration cislunar+ missions are on radar.

You are asserting a personal opinion, not a fact. In order for artificial gravity to be needed, the U.S. Government would have to have a need to keep humans in space for long periods of time, and wants to keep them healthier than they would be in 0G environments.

And as of today, the U.S. Government has not announced that it has such a need.

Which is why NASA doesn't need a rotation space station... yet. Let's hope that changes in the future, but as of today interest in artificial gravity are just that, a scientific interest that has not risen to the level of being substantially funded.

[LMT]

- Does NASA need a rotating space station?  Almost certainly, now that long-duration cislunar+ missions are on radar.

You are asserting a personal opinion, not a fact. In order for artificial gravity to be needed, the U.S. Government would have to have a need to keep humans in space for long periods of time, and wants to keep them healthier than they would be in 0G environments.

And as of today, the U.S. Government has not announced that it has such a need.

But of course it's just a personal opinion.     

No gov announcement, obviously.  (Our opinion on a need shouldn't be contingent on an organizational announcement.  Let's not wait for a PR agent to tell us what's important, ok?)

I just don't see how NASA can expect to meet long-duration cislunar+ mission goals without first undertaking extensive AG research within a rotating space station.  The low-g medical issues are just brutal beyond 1 yr.

In this respect SpaceX will soon be in much the same boat as NASA [pun].

[Coastal Ron]

I just don't see how NASA can expect to meet long-duration cislunar+ mission goals without first undertaking extensive AG research within a rotating space station.

NASA has no long-duration cislunar goals. Remember NASA's 17,000+ employees don't get to choose their goals, the President and Congress do. And right now the President and Congress don't have long-duration cislunar goals - the LOP-G, which is the most visible potential goal, only requires short-duration stays due to the short duration of the Orion spacecraft in space.

The low-g medical issues are just brutal beyond 1 yr.

Few would argue that point. The argument you are getting is that there is a significant effort underway at NASA to solve the problem.

In this respect SpaceX will soon be in much the same boat as NASA [pun].

Not really, since the BFS will get to Mars in a matter of months, and after that Musk will be doing his own experiment in how well humans do in the 1/3 G micro-gravity of Mars.

[LMT]

NASA has no long-duration cislunar goals.

Cislunar+.  Journey to Mars this-and-that ambitions.  I think folks at NSF grok Congressional authorization and such.

[Coastal Ron]

NASA has no long-duration cislunar goals.

Cislunar+.  Journey to Mars this-and-that ambitions.  I think folks at NSF grok Congressional authorization and such.

You are moving the goals posts. You original stated cislunar goals (i.e. between Earth and Moon), and that is what I responded to. Now you are throwing in Mars.

Which doesn't matter since that chart from was from the Obama era of NASA, and the Trump era of NASA no longer is focused near-term on Mars. Which puts Mars decades out into the future - not a near-term need.

Plus, most of the mission time for a Mars mission would be spent in 1/3 G on the planet surface, and NASA has not been worried about the need for artificial gravity on the trips there and back. Notice none of their graphics show artificial gravity spaceships?

Find a specific budget line-item for artificial gravity and you'll be able to prove that "NASA", and not just some researchers at NASA, is focused on artificial gravity. Until then it's just research.

[LMT]

You are moving the goals posts. You original stated cislunar goals (i.e. between Earth and Moon), and that is what I responded to. Now you are throwing in Mars.

Cislunar+.  Journey to Mars ambitions inclusive, naturally.

NASA no longer is focused near-term on Mars. Which puts Mars decades out into the future - not a near-term need.

And here's where it gets interesting.  SpaceX might try the first ITS test-hop within the next 11 months.  At which time NASA either throws its full weight into Mars ambitions, or...?

Deckard: [getting up to leave] I was quit when I come in here, Bryant, I'm twice as quit now.

Bryant: Stop right where you are! You know the score, pal. You're not cop, you're little people!

[Deckard stops at the door]

Deckard: No choice, huh?

Bryant: [smiles] No choice, pal.

[Coastal Ron]

You are moving the goals posts. You original stated cislunar goals (i.e. between Earth and Moon), and that is what I responded to. Now you are throwing in Mars.

Cislunar+.  Journey to Mars ambitions inclusive, naturally.

In other words, yes, you were moving the goal posts.

NASA no longer is focused near-term on Mars. Which puts Mars decades out into the future - not a near-term need.

And here's where it gets interesting.  SpaceX might try the first ITS test-hop within the next 11 months.  At which time NASA either throws its full weight into Mars ambitions, or...?

Again, NASA the agency has no say about what NASA the agency is assigned to do. The President and Congress decide what they want NASA to do.

Not only are Trump and Congress are not going to get excited about a rocket test, but they certainly won't immediately jump to the conclusion that a rocket test means they should dump the SLS and pour $Billions into artificial gravity research. You are grasping at too many straws...