I completely forgot that the poster was the guy. I'm stupid like that.Quote from: HMXHMX on 07/17/2018 03:33 amQuote from: Paul451 on 07/16/2018 06:41 pmOdd choice of size. If you want to do human research (as well as animal), it seems odd to focus on a 1g station right out of the gate. It's the mid-g values that you want.Page 11 shows where I began, i.e., a zero-g free flyer with the old NASA-NASDA 2.5 meter animal centrifuges.I saw it in 2012. It was reassuring to know that other people actually want this research. I see so much resistance to it.Quote from: HMXHMX on 07/17/2018 03:33 amIt was originally designed for Falcon Heavy, since at the time it was proposed, the New Glenn hadn't been unveiled. But once it had, and given Bezos' preference for an O'Neill-type settlement vision (not to mention Elon told me studying this problem of reduced G survival wasn't a priority for him), I defaulted to NG once it became "available."I wasn't playing favourites between the two. Musk, like most of the "Mars Underground", thinks that spin-g research is a waste, anything that gets between them and Mars is a waste. That doesn't mean he wouldn't happily launch any payload you care to pay him for.OTOH, if you can get actual funding from Bezos, or even just free launches, Go For It.Quote from: HMXHMX on 07/17/2018 03:33 amThe 1G level is designed an an on-orbit controlIt's an argument I've had with Mike LePage before. I don't think that the first test facility needs to control for low-RPM 1g. Your first and most critical point of interest is whether the micro-g health issues go away with some gravity (and if so, how much.) Your control is ISS and Earth. Sure, later on, you can pick a high-RPM tolerant crew and do 1g research, if there's weirdness in the results that bothers people. But why risk not even getting funded by having a shock factor like >100m length, for the very first thing you make? People know what the ISS costs, when you show an image of another facility on the scale of ISS and insist that it will be vastly cheaper, you'll have already lost your audience, even if you are right.Indeed, that's why I'd prefer to start with a free-flying short-run very-high-RPM, low-g unmanned mouse & rat study. (I've suggested a Dragon capsule (just an example) so you can get the samples back.) It's a step up from the ISS mouse-centrifuge, hopefully doable within a Discovery-level budget. Once you pin down some values for mid-g health over a larger sample-size, that gives you some concrete values for a larger - but as small as possible - man-tended animal facility. Human results would be considered very preliminary, but between long-term animal and short-term human, that gives you values for how to keep a larger human-testing facility affordable. Or values that show the whole enterprise is pointless, if humans can't adapt to low-g, mammals can't breed in low-g.Jumping straight to the end facility before you have reasonable numbers from the earlier ones, IMO invites early rejection from funders.Quote from: HMXHMX on 07/17/2018 03:33 amI'd expect a third flight at some future time to add an axial hub extension which would either allow another arm pair to be added or to provide more docking and zero-g working volume.Careful. Axial masses reduce stability. You are probably already pushing it with the two capsules along the spin-axis.(That's why I prefer to hang the solar arrays/radiators at 90° to the arms, increasing the distribution of mass in the plane of spin.)
Quote from: Paul451 on 07/16/2018 06:41 pmOdd choice of size. If you want to do human research (as well as animal), it seems odd to focus on a 1g station right out of the gate. It's the mid-g values that you want.Page 11 shows where I began, i.e., a zero-g free flyer with the old NASA-NASDA 2.5 meter animal centrifuges.
Odd choice of size. If you want to do human research (as well as animal), it seems odd to focus on a 1g station right out of the gate. It's the mid-g values that you want.
It was originally designed for Falcon Heavy, since at the time it was proposed, the New Glenn hadn't been unveiled. But once it had, and given Bezos' preference for an O'Neill-type settlement vision (not to mention Elon told me studying this problem of reduced G survival wasn't a priority for him), I defaulted to NG once it became "available."
The 1G level is designed an an on-orbit control
I'd expect a third flight at some future time to add an axial hub extension which would either allow another arm pair to be added or to provide more docking and zero-g working volume.
Sure, if we're limited to 1RPM and 1g we can still build giant cities in space... But we can't build small towns. And if you can't build a town, you sure as hell ain't building cities. There's no organic path forward. No steps.
Quote from: HMXHMX on 07/17/2018 03:33 amThe 1G level is designed an an on-orbit controlIt's an argument I've had with Mike LePage before. I don't think that the first test facility needs to control for low-RPM 1g. Your first and most critical point of interest is whether the micro-g health issues go away with some gravity (and if so, how much.) Your control is ISS and Earth. Sure, later on, you can pick a high-RPM tolerant crew and do 1g research, if there's weirdness in the results that bothers people. But why risk not even getting funded by having a shock factor like >100m length, for the very first thing you make? People know what the ISS costs, when you show an image of another facility on the scale of ISS and insist that it will be vastly cheaper, you'll have already lost your audience, even if you are right.Indeed, that's why I'd prefer to start with a free-flying short-run very-high-RPM, low-g unmanned mouse & rat study. (I've suggested a Dragon capsule (just an example) so you can get the samples back.) It's a step up from the ISS mouse-centrifuge, hopefully doable within a Discovery-level budget. Once you pin down some values for mid-g health over a larger sample-size, that gives you some concrete values for a larger - but as small as possible - man-tended animal facility. Human results would be considered very preliminary, but between long-term animal and short-term human, that gives you values for how to keep a larger human-testing facility affordable. Or values that show the whole enterprise is pointless, if humans can't adapt to low-g, mammals can't breed in low-g.Jumping straight to the end facility before you have reasonable numbers from the earlier ones, IMO invites early rejection from funders.
Quote from: Lampyridae on 07/13/2018 09:46 amAdaptation seems to be long term; ie once you have been habituated to it, for at least 30 days there is a high level of retention.Thanks for that. I hadn't realised the adaptation was retained that long.Quote from: Lampyridae on 07/13/2018 09:46 am{laughs} Yeah, good luck getting that past the ISS gatekeepers.
Adaptation seems to be long term; ie once you have been habituated to it, for at least 30 days there is a high level of retention.
Just to repeat what I said at the time, the entire point of a control is that you won't know if there's weirdness in the results if you haven't done the control. That's why you do the control.
Also, because a man-tended rodent facility brings a whole new plethora of problems, I'm not yet convinced it's actually easier or cheaper than building a human scale centrifuge.
Quote from: QuantumG on 07/18/2018 02:10 amWhy? If ya bother to read Globus you'll discover that space colonies are easier than ever, and with fully reusable super-heavy lift on the horizon, the only thing missing is the will to do it.And the money and time (and technology) to build giga-ton sized habitats that won't kill their inhabitants when hit by space debris. Yeah, sure, near-term...
Why? If ya bother to read Globus you'll discover that space colonies are easier than ever, and with fully reusable super-heavy lift on the horizon, the only thing missing is the will to do it.
Quote from: mikelepage on 07/18/2018 11:28 amJust to repeat what I said at the time, the entire point of a control is that you won't know if there's weirdness in the results if you haven't done the control. That's why you do the control.And as I said, Earth is your control. (And ISS.) For the early testing, you aren't going to be seeing subtleties, at least amongst humans. Too few subject, too much variation in movement, activity, diet. You're only looking for the really big things.
thinks he is saving the program time and money by skipping the 1G low spin-rate control in orbit.
You guys are quite right in my design I make a gross assumption that there will be no problems with 2 RPM and people working half a day and 1g environment and half a day and 0g. This should be proven out first at a smaller scale
But I meant by near term is 10 - 20 years. My main point is that it could be built with technology that is either available now or expected be available soon.
To be economically viable there probably has to be an anchor tenant, like in large shopping malls.
I think this means it there must be something that can only be manufactured in space and not down on earth that can generate large profits. Maybe in the pharmaceutical industry.
Research is a natural...
...and other possibilities would be a Hollywood style studio for sci-fi movies and of course tourists.
I always imagined the space station would be a jumping off point for human a deep space exploration, but all plans to date bypass the ISS. Is this really the best approach?
Quote from: mikelepage on 07/19/2018 07:19 amthinks he is saving the program time and money by skipping the 1G low spin-rate control in orbit.Define "low spin-rate". Is it 1RPM? Or 2? Even 4? But definitely not 5 or 6? Show me the prior science that tells you the known safe spin-rate?You are still making an huge, untested assumption, only you are refusing to see it as an assumption.And the difference in scale between 1-6RPM is 36-fold, between 1800m and just 50m, so you are always going to try to argue that at least 4RPM is "low", and your opponents/critics are always going to argue that 4RPM is much too high as a "control".Even at 1RPM, you could build a trillion dollar, 1.8km station, with 1000 people living on board as your sample, and still get the same weird result as in your scenario. That's why you start as small as possible. Building a big expensive thing without having tested the basic concept on a smaller scale strikes me as deeply unrealistic.Finding that there's a completely unexpected inner-ear disease caused by >6RPM but not 4RPM would be an extraordinary result, especially from such a tiny sample size. Why would someone lose their job over that? That's exactly what an experimental station is meant to find. The researchers would be waving in the faces of their critics.
To be economically viable there probably has to be an anchor tenant, like in large shopping malls. I think this means it there must be something that can only be manufactured in space and not down on earth that can generate large profits. Maybe in the pharmaceutical industry. Research is a natural and other possibilities would be a Hollywood style studio for sci-fi movies and of course tourists.
Quote from: Roy_H on 07/19/2018 08:30 pmBut I meant by near term is 10 - 20 years. My main point is that it could be built with technology that is either available now or expected be available soon.Given that time frame let's say around 2030 to start launching and 2035-2040 to complete, the launchers available hopefully at a minimum would be BFS/BFR, Vulcan with ACES, New Glenn and possibly New Armstrong.
To be economically viable there probably has to be an anchor tenant, like in large shopping malls. I think this means it there must be something that can only be manufactured in space and not down on earth that can generate large profits. Maybe in the pharmaceutical industry. Research is a natural and other possibilities would be a Hollywood style studio for sci-fi movies and of course tourists.I always imagined the space station would be a jumping off point for human a deep space exploration, but all plans to date bypass the ISS. Is this really the best approach?