Author Topic: Non-HSF, near-term spin gravity experiments  (Read 25739 times)

Offline mikelepage

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1218
  • ExodusSpaceSystems.com
  • Perth, Australia
  • Liked: 855
  • Likes Given: 1358
Re: Non-HSF, near-term spin gravity experiments
« Reply #40 on: 05/06/2016 03:09 pm »
Wanted to update this thread with a concept my team put into the NASA space apps challenge recently (April 22-24th).  It's a "flat-packed" spiral framework for doing spin gravity research with expandable modules.


Offline savuporo

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5152
  • Liked: 1002
  • Likes Given: 342
Re: Non-HSF, near-term spin gravity experiments
« Reply #41 on: 05/06/2016 04:22 pm »
http://space.skyrocket.de/doc_sdat/eu-cropis.htm

Quote
Eu:CROPIS (Euglena and Combined Regenerative Organic-Food Production in Space) is a German life science satellite developed by the DLR to investigate the growing of plants in different levels of gravity on Mars and the Moon.

The 250 kg lightweight greenhouse satellite is designed to rotate around its longitudinal axis while orbiting at an altitude of roughly 600 km. In doing so, it will replicate lunar gravity, which is 0.16 times the gravity on Earth, or the gravity on Mars, which is 0.38 times the gravity on Earth depending on the rotational speed. The Eu:CROPIS mission will operate two greenhouse environments. The first of the two greenhouses will operate under lunar conditions for the first six months, while the second greenhouse will operate in a Martian environment for the following six months.

http://www.parabolicarc.com/2014/07/08/dlr-signs-launch-services-agreement-spaceflight/
Quote
The Eu:CROPIS spacecraft is scheduled for a rideshare launch on a Spaceflight SHERPA vehicle in 2017.

www.dlr.de/dlr/en/desktopdefault.aspx/tabid-10255/365_read-10095
Orion - the first and only manned not-too-deep-space craft

Offline mikelepage

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1218
  • ExodusSpaceSystems.com
  • Perth, Australia
  • Liked: 855
  • Likes Given: 1358
Re: Non-HSF, near-term spin gravity experiments
« Reply #42 on: 08/13/2016 07:29 am »
I finally finished designing and ordering a 3D printable version of my take on this deployable centrifuge concept: :)




Compact launch config (including lazy tong deployment mechanism)

Deployed config (segments alone, showing offset hinges - the deploying "lazy tong" mechanism is would appear as 12 spokes to a central hub)

I will create a video when the print arrives from Shapeways in a few weeks, but I wanted to share a few interesting outcomes that came from the process of actually designing it for 3D printing.

1) Had to SLS print this one - 75 interconnected, moving parts that will be printed out in one hit! Compacted diameter is ~56 mm expanding out to ~238 mm.
2) This mechanism allows you to fold a torus geometry (high-radius, shallow depth), into a rocket payload fairing (small radius, long depth).  This particular model has a ~4:1 expansion in radius, but the principle means that the radius of the deployed torus is proportional to the length of the compact form, which is great for fitting it into rocket fairings.
3) I decided to use 12 segments instead of 6: This means you can give each segment the slight curve required to feel "flat" once in deployed spin gravity mode, and it won't bulge too far out when compacted into the fairing.
4) In order to make it rigid and deployable, I used a lazy tong mechanism.  This means it can be deployed and retracted at will, and it's up to the engineers whether they want to use a flywheel/gyro type arrangement, or gas thrusters to deal with angular momentum.
5) The geometry of those hinges was a headache  :o - in order for the segments to be planar, the hinges have to be offset and angled - and not by integer amounts.
6) The offset hinges do however mean that in a human-scale version, you could have a docking port at the both ends of each segment, and these could dock to each other whilst deployed, but dock to the axial modules when retracted.
7) Mission profile would consist of launch and trajectory adjustment burns being performed in retracted config, but cruise phases in deployed config.  The rigid (i.e. not using a tether) nature of the mechanism means the stresses on the modules are predictable/non-chaotic, which I think should be a big plus as far as the engineers are concerned.  Since the majority of any cruise phase would be spent in spin gravity, you could power down most of the rest of the craft during that time, and only power it up once you're ready to transfer to a Mars lander craft or whatever.

NB: the segments in this design each consist of 5 cylinders for a reason, but that's for another post.  ;)

Offline morten44

  • Member
  • Posts: 3
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Non-HSF, near-term spin gravity experiments
« Reply #43 on: 08/13/2016 07:12 pm »
Why is it taking so long to develop a spinning spacecraft? I am starting to doubt that i will see any mars landing in my lifetime

Offline Robotbeat

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 39270
  • Minnesota
  • Liked: 25240
  • Likes Given: 12115
Re: Non-HSF, near-term spin gravity experiments
« Reply #44 on: 08/13/2016 07:43 pm »
Why is it taking so long to develop a spinning spacecraft? I am starting to doubt that i will see any mars landing in my lifetime
Because you don't need a spinning spacecraft to have a Mars landing. In fact, if you tried to do a spinning spacecraft, it'd take longer to get to a Mars landing.
Chris  Whoever loves correction loves knowledge, but he who hates reproof is stupid.

To the maximum extent practicable, the Federal Government shall plan missions to accommodate the space transportation services capabilities of United States commercial providers. US law http://goo.gl/YZYNt0

Offline morten44

  • Member
  • Posts: 3
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Non-HSF, near-term spin gravity experiments
« Reply #45 on: 08/13/2016 07:50 pm »
Why is it taking so long to develop a spinning spacecraft? I am starting to doubt that i will see any mars landing in my lifetime
Because you don't need a spinning spacecraft to have a Mars landing. In fact, if you tried to do a spinning spacecraft, it'd take longer to get to a Mars landing.
There are all sorts of articles about the negative effects of zero gravity in the news. I was lead to believe that we either had to have artificial gravity or drastically improve propulsion. Anyway, there doesn't seem to be any proposals by politicians to increase the nasa budget in  order to prepare for a mars landing. If it were only slightly increased that would be better than nothing.

Offline Robotbeat

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 39270
  • Minnesota
  • Liked: 25240
  • Likes Given: 12115
Re: Non-HSF, near-term spin gravity experiments
« Reply #46 on: 08/13/2016 08:00 pm »
Why is it taking so long to develop a spinning spacecraft? I am starting to doubt that i will see any mars landing in my lifetime
Because you don't need a spinning spacecraft to have a Mars landing. In fact, if you tried to do a spinning spacecraft, it'd take longer to get to a Mars landing.
There are all sorts of articles about the negative effects of zero gravity in the news. I was lead to believe that we either had to have artificial gravity or drastically improve propulsion. Anyway, there doesn't seem to be any proposals by politicians to increase the nasa budget in  order to prepare for a mars landing. If it were only slightly increased that would be better than nothing.

The negative effects are low enough that we can do surface missions to Mars without artificial gravity.

No improvements to propulsion /per se/ are required, but the ability to refuel, especially on the surface of Mars, would help tremendously in doing the mission quick enough and cheap enough to be able to be done in our lifespan.

You may be interested to know that SpaceX is planning a crewed mission to the surface of Mars in 9 years, and they're talking the steps necessary to accomplish that ambitious goal.

The main things that are needed are entry, descent, and landing technology and refueling.
Chris  Whoever loves correction loves knowledge, but he who hates reproof is stupid.

To the maximum extent practicable, the Federal Government shall plan missions to accommodate the space transportation services capabilities of United States commercial providers. US law http://goo.gl/YZYNt0

Offline morten44

  • Member
  • Posts: 3
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Non-HSF, near-term spin gravity experiments
« Reply #47 on: 08/13/2016 08:11 pm »
Why is it taking so long to develop a spinning spacecraft? I am starting to doubt that i will see any mars landing in my lifetime
Because you don't need a spinning spacecraft to have a Mars landing. In fact, if you tried to do a spinning spacecraft, it'd take longer to get to a Mars landing.
There are all sorts of articles about the negative effects of zero gravity in the news. I was lead to believe that we either had to have artificial gravity or drastically improve propulsion. Anyway, there doesn't seem to be any proposals by politicians to increase the nasa budget in  order to prepare for a mars landing. If it were only slightly increased that would be better than nothing.

The negative effects are low enough that we can do surface missions to Mars without artificial gravity.

No improvements to propulsion /per se/ are required, but the ability to refuel, especially on the surface of Mars, would help tremendously in doing the mission quick enough and cheap enough to be able to be done in our lifespan.

You may be interested to know that SpaceX is planning a crewed mission to the surface of Mars in 9 years, and they're talking the steps necessary to accomplish that ambitious goal.

The main things that are needed are entry, descent, and landing technology and refueling.
So you are saying elon musk will land on mars before NASA? Why is he able to do so much with so little, while nasa with its enormous budget, is not able to do anything? I know about orion and the space launch system. However, there   is no spacecraft that will take the astronauts from earth to mars. They can't live long in orion.
I am sorry i seem impatient :)
Well, at least i know that the next "one small step" speech will be given by a private company, not by a nation state.
But i digress from the issue of artificial gravity. If one were to create one of these space stations with gravity, they might be placed anywhere, right? In orbit around mars or perhaps at some other strategic location?

Offline Robotbeat

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 39270
  • Minnesota
  • Liked: 25240
  • Likes Given: 12115
Re: Non-HSF, near-term spin gravity experiments
« Reply #48 on: 08/13/2016 08:36 pm »
ISS modules or perhaps Cygnus modules would provide enough space for the trip to Mars, that's not the problem. We've also done >1 year long missions. Doesn't seem to be too much of a problem, especially in the first 3-6 months as you're getting to Mars.

We mostly just need a big lander/ascender vehicle and the ability to refuel.

SpaceX is able to do a lot for a little because their focus on reuse has the advantage of basically testing all the technology needed for landing big payloads on Mars then refueling and launching back to orbit. Also, it means that test missions for ISRU demos can be done very cheaply and with plenty of mass.

Also NASA has a LOT of political constraints on the money it has plus an expectation for unrealistic levels of certainty and safety that slows everything down without really improving safety.

I suspect SpaceX will be going along with NASA astronauts.


...also, SpaceX is no longer a small company. They're worth $10 billion, have a decent flightrate going, and have 5000 employees, as opposed to the 17,000 civil servants at NASA (many of whom are NOT doing Mars-related work... maybe only a third are focused on HSF Mars), though NASA has a bunch of contractors as well. Also, SpaceX's workforce works longer hours than NASA and are FAR younger than NASA civil servants. So SpaceX has a huge capacity to accomplish big things, and they're growing. It's no longer absurd to talk about SpaceX heading a crewed mission to Mars, although nothing is guaranteed at this point... SpaceX still needs to launch crew to ISS!
« Last Edit: 08/13/2016 08:43 pm by Robotbeat »
Chris  Whoever loves correction loves knowledge, but he who hates reproof is stupid.

To the maximum extent practicable, the Federal Government shall plan missions to accommodate the space transportation services capabilities of United States commercial providers. US law http://goo.gl/YZYNt0

Offline Robotbeat

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 39270
  • Minnesota
  • Liked: 25240
  • Likes Given: 12115
Re: Non-HSF, near-term spin gravity experiments
« Reply #49 on: 08/13/2016 08:56 pm »
BTW, it would be good for NASA to do partial-gravity experiments. It's really what NASA is for. Totally unneeded for the transit to Mars, but essential to find out how we'll react long-term on the surface of Mars and how to ensure safe reproduction so people can live and raise families on Mars, etc.

Like this concept developed at NASA Langley:


...and I sort of disagree with how this is sold. I prefer to come from the perspective of identifying obstacles so they can be overcome, not identifying obstacles to find excuses not to progress. But anyway, that's secondary. The mission concept is a good one. At very least, we should try something similar at a smaller scale.
Chris  Whoever loves correction loves knowledge, but he who hates reproof is stupid.

To the maximum extent practicable, the Federal Government shall plan missions to accommodate the space transportation services capabilities of United States commercial providers. US law http://goo.gl/YZYNt0

Offline mikelepage

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1218
  • ExodusSpaceSystems.com
  • Perth, Australia
  • Liked: 855
  • Likes Given: 1358
Re: Non-HSF, near-term spin gravity experiments
« Reply #50 on: 08/14/2016 06:11 am »
Why is it taking so long to develop a spinning spacecraft? I am starting to doubt that i will see any mars landing in my lifetime
Because you don't need a spinning spacecraft to have a Mars landing. In fact, if you tried to do a spinning spacecraft, it'd take longer to get to a Mars landing.

It's true you don't need spin gravity to achieve Mars landing, so don't do it for your first Mars landing.  Or your first 10 for that matter.  I've never met a spin gravity proponent that suggested we delay Mars landing until we have the problem licked (all else being equal).    I think most spin gravity advocates are only suggesting this research should be done in parallel, such that when your astronauts graduate from guinea pig status, we have options to make the ride more comfortable, and stop requiring Mars astronauts to push the limits of human capacity.  If it turns out the costs of doing it without spin gravity are too great, then we'll be ready.

This thread is about non-HSF AG applications though, so let's try and stick to the topic.


Offline guckyfan

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7438
  • Germany
  • Liked: 2332
  • Likes Given: 2891
Re: Non-HSF, near-term spin gravity experiments
« Reply #51 on: 08/14/2016 06:23 pm »
That NASA concept for a test habitat is downright scary to me. It is the spin gravity equivalent of the Battlestar Galactica architecture NASA came up with when asked by the elder Bush president for a Mars mission concept. Absurdly complex and expensive. A way to make sure it never happens.

To ever happen something much simpler and cheaper is needed. The concept from the video on page one sounds much better. But to expect that Elon Musk will supply a FH for free is not realistic. He is following his own gameplan.

I suggest another approach. Design a spin habitat, that is simple and not expensive in itself and can be maintained by people. I fully expect that SpaceX will do an extended testflight, probably in LEO, with the crew MCT. Plenty of space and weight capacity to add a centrifuge for Mars gravity, maybe a second one for moon gravity. I can well imagine that Elon Musk would support that if he is not already thinking along these lines already.

Offline Robotbeat

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 39270
  • Minnesota
  • Liked: 25240
  • Likes Given: 12115
Re: Non-HSF, near-term spin gravity experiments
« Reply #52 on: 08/14/2016 06:35 pm »
Why is it taking so long to develop a spinning spacecraft? I am starting to doubt that i will see any mars landing in my lifetime
Because you don't need a spinning spacecraft to have a Mars landing. In fact, if you tried to do a spinning spacecraft, it'd take longer to get to a Mars landing.

It's true you don't need spin gravity to achieve Mars landing, so don't do it for your first Mars landing.  Or your first 10 for that matter.  I've never met a spin gravity proponent that suggested we delay Mars landing until we have the problem licked (all else being equal).    I think most spin gravity advocates are only suggesting this research should be done in parallel, such that when your astronauts graduate from guinea pig status, we have options to make the ride more comfortable, and stop requiring Mars astronauts to push the limits of human capacity.  If it turns out the costs of doing it without spin gravity are too great, then we'll be ready.

This thread is about non-HSF AG applications though, so let's try and stick to the topic.
non-HSF AG /experiments/, not really "applications."
Chris  Whoever loves correction loves knowledge, but he who hates reproof is stupid.

To the maximum extent practicable, the Federal Government shall plan missions to accommodate the space transportation services capabilities of United States commercial providers. US law http://goo.gl/YZYNt0

Offline savuporo

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5152
  • Liked: 1002
  • Likes Given: 342
Re: Non-HSF, near-term spin gravity experiments
« Reply #53 on: 09/17/2016 08:11 pm »
New~ish paper on DLR's eu:CROPIS, published at SpaceOps 2016 in May

http://arc.aiaa.org/doi/pdf/10.2514/6.2016-2533
Quote
Eu:CROPIS (Euglena and Combined Regenerative Organic-Food Production in Space) is a biological life support mission scheduled for launch in 2017 on-board a Falcon 9 rocket. The spin stabilized satellite will be operated under different levels of acceleration to investigate the growth of tomatoes under simulated Mars and Moon gravity. It comprises two pressurized greenhouses, which are rotated around the spacecraft longitudinal axis, a radiation detector and a secondary payload from NASA AMES research center. Each greenhouse compartment will be operated for 6 months at different rotational speed in order to simulate different gravitational forces. Special care has to be taken in the design and the operations of Eu:CROPIS because biological processes may not be disturbed during spacecraft anomalies, and stable thermal conditions and lighting cycles must be assured.

The 250 kg satellite is built by the DLR Institute for Space Systems and will be operated by the German Space Operations Center (GSOC) – another DLR institution. This allows an exceptionally close cooperation between the operations team and the spacecraft manufacturer. Decisions can be made together on whether a technical solution is to be implemented within the space segment or the ground segment. This approach minimizes the overall mission costs and maximizes the scientific output. Operational benefits arise from the on-board data handling, which permits the re-use of existing mission planning systems and minimizes adjustments to the mission control and data system. Additionally, an experimental but more powerful downlink mode may be used operationally after successful checkout, which could reduce the downlink time and related costs.

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

Offline Robotbeat

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 39270
  • Minnesota
  • Liked: 25240
  • Likes Given: 12115
Re: Non-HSF, near-term spin gravity experiments
« Reply #54 on: 09/18/2016 12:46 am »
Tomatoes are great... but we so need rodents under partial gravity! Hopefully this can serve as a platform for later experiments.
« Last Edit: 09/18/2016 12:46 am by Robotbeat »
Chris  Whoever loves correction loves knowledge, but he who hates reproof is stupid.

To the maximum extent practicable, the Federal Government shall plan missions to accommodate the space transportation services capabilities of United States commercial providers. US law http://goo.gl/YZYNt0

Offline mikelepage

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1218
  • ExodusSpaceSystems.com
  • Perth, Australia
  • Liked: 855
  • Likes Given: 1358
Re: Non-HSF, near-term spin gravity experiments
« Reply #55 on: 09/18/2016 05:49 pm »
Presenting... the DEployable Spin Gravity Array.  :)  Folded form is tall and narrow, deployed form is a wide torus.

Still a work in progress (doesn't deploy and fold up cleanly yet), but since I showed the models above, I thought you guys might be interested to see the 3D print.

« Last Edit: 09/18/2016 05:53 pm by mikelepage »

Offline Paul451

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3553
  • Australia
  • Liked: 2518
  • Likes Given: 2180
Re: Non-HSF, near-term spin gravity experiments
« Reply #56 on: 09/18/2016 11:08 pm »
Presenting... the DEployable Spin Gravity Array.  :)  Folded form is tall and narrow, deployed form is a wide torus.
I thought you guys might be interested to see the 3D print.

You might want to cross-post to Prober's "3D Printing uses Space Related" thread.

Offline high road

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1688
  • Europe
  • Liked: 837
  • Likes Given: 152
Re: Non-HSF, near-term spin gravity experiments
« Reply #57 on: 09/19/2016 11:59 am »
The nice thing about euthanising with N2 is that mammals have no receptors for the gas (which normally comprises 80% of the atmosphere), so by swapping the 20% oxygen out for N2, the animals go to sleep without any distress which may otherwise affect results.  You can then flood the chamber with LN2 afterwards.  I'm agnostic as to whether this would produce better samples - I'm not assuming a huge number of returned capsules in any case.

Sorry to quote something from this far back, but I've must of missed it.

My dad had pulmonary edema. He was unable to sleep for weeks because his body kept waking him up as the oxygen levels in his blood dropped. I still have vivid memories of the terror in his face as he was trying to get enough air into his lungs. So YMMV on pure N2 euthanising without any distress.

Offline Paul451

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3553
  • Australia
  • Liked: 2518
  • Likes Given: 2180
Re: Non-HSF, near-term spin gravity experiments
« Reply #58 on: 09/20/2016 12:24 am »
Sorry to quote something from this far back, but I've must of missed it.
My dad had pulmonary edema. He was unable to sleep for weeks because his body kept waking him up as the oxygen levels in his blood dropped. I still have vivid memories of the terror in his face as he was trying to get enough air into his lungs. So YMMV on pure N2 euthanising without any distress.

AIUI, it's the build-up of CO2 that causes the feeling of suffocation. Pulmonary edema blocks the CO2 gas-exchange as well, not just the O2 absorption. The fluid build up is functionally the same as not being able to breath. With pure N2, the levels of CO2 in the blood quickly drop because the outward portion of the gas exchange still works, hence no distress.

(Many people have been killed working in water tanks and bilges by newly-exposed wet iron, precisely because there's no warning.)

Tags:
 

Advertisement NovaTech
Advertisement Northrop Grumman
Advertisement
Advertisement Margaritaville Beach Resort South Padre Island
Advertisement Brady Kenniston
Advertisement NextSpaceflight
Advertisement Nathan Barker Photography
1