Artificial Gravity Testbeds

[leovinus]

...
Besides testing out specific gravity gradients (i.e. Moon gravity, Mars gravity, etc.), what other tests need to be done to pave the way for building full-sized operational rotating space stations?

One way to answer your question "what other tests?" is to look back and study in more detail the published literature since the early 60s. A vast amount at NTRS and elsewhere. If you are interested in the angle from an "historical artificial testbed" thread incl. human and machine responses then happy to contribute papers and material.

I see that you have a big interest in the historical perspective of spaceflight, and sure, if you can find references to what early NASA thought would be the challenge with less-than-Earth gravity for long periods of time in space, that might be interesting.

Added a thread Historical Artificial Gravity - references and documents. Hope it is useful.

[Coastal Ron]

...
Besides testing out specific gravity gradients (i.e. Moon gravity, Mars gravity, etc.), what other tests need to be done to pave the way for building full-sized operational rotating space stations?

One way to answer your question "what other tests?" is to look back and study in more detail the published literature since the early 60s. A vast amount at NTRS and elsewhere. If you are interested in the angle from an "historical artificial testbed" thread incl. human and machine responses then happy to contribute papers and material.

I see that you have a big interest in the historical perspective of spaceflight, and sure, if you can find references to what early NASA thought would be the challenge with less-than-Earth gravity for long periods of time in space, that might be interesting.

Added a thread Historical Artificial Gravity - references and documents. Hope it is useful.

I think this will be a GREAT reference resource. THANKS!

[Twark_Main]

Well then it doesn't apply to the goals of an artificial gravity testbed, does it?

Again you spectacularly missed my point, even to the point of intentionally editing it out of my post when you quoted me.

On an AG testbed, you can have racks and racks of RRHS-derived animal habitats.

I don't care about livestock in space. Or rabbits in space, or mice in space. They are not my target market.

Guess what? Even people who raise livestock and rabbits and mice....   their "target market" isn't the rabbits/mice/livestock.

Obviously it's not about the animals. It's about the humans who can be helped by those biomedical data. Yes that includes future space colonists.

Look, you want to study non-human animals

It's not that. I'm just pointing out that you're rejecting it for weird and unjustified reasons.

By weird you mean I'm focused on my target market, and not some unrelated market? Yep.

False dichotomy, see above.

And here's the thing, I don't think I'll have any problem finding research subjects.

There are many problems in space colonization, but a shortage of volunteers has never been one of them (for your project or anyone else's).

And 100% of the science returned will be related to the ultimate goal of finding out whether humans can survive in artificial gravity that is significantly less than one Earth gravity.

If (in a bizarre fit of authoritarianism) you decided to ban all research animals from your space station, you're going to get a lot less data. Would you rather have 100% of $1 or 50% of $1,000? 

Why are you even worried? Your customers will be the ones who decide whether biomedical research is a good use of your infra-gravity facilities! You (like any good landlord) will happily accept their money either way. 

A landlord's job is to make money. By the way, they don't do that by intentionally trying to saturate the market beyond demand, or by intentionally using inefficient construction techniques that make their properties overpriced relative to competitors (eg Vast).

But if you want to study animals instead of humans, go do it. Just STOP BUGGING ME ABOUT MY GOALS.

Again, you keep mischaracterizing my position by saying that I want to go study animals. That's not what I'm saying.

I'm only observing that your prediction that "humans are likely the only animal that will be in sufficient numbers" for biomedical research (which allegedly justifies why your station being oversized is actually a good thing) is unlikely to be correct.

Having goals fine. However, the fact that you have a certain goal doesn't argue in favor of your (anti-historical, ludicrous) prediction that there will be a shortage of lab mice in space so we'll have no choice but to experiment on humans.

My goal is to as quickly as possible determine what the minimum gravity will be to allow humans to not only survive in space, but also thrive.

In other words, you want to jump to risky large-scale human tests without retiring any of the risk on non-human and unmanned tests first.

Does the Titan come to mind, anyone?

What did I tell you about bad analogies? You throw a word out that in your mind contains your entire argument, yet it turns out that your audience sees no relevance - because there is none.

And you have yet to outline what any of your SPECIFIC concerns are, since we do human research in space all the time and you don't seem to object to that.

As I said above, my SPECIFIC concern is that your stated plan is to leap prematurely into large-scale ('bigger is better' / 'the more the merrier') crewed commercial operation within a highly hazardous environment, while expressing a desire to avoid extensive non-human safety testing to retire major risks first. That is literally the exact same mistake that OceanGate made.

But let me be honest. Long ago you stopped providing any useful feedback, so I would be quite happy if you just considered me to be hopelessly clueless and left me to stumble around on my own. How about that?

Not for lack of trying! "You can lead a horse to water..."

I'd be more concerned if I thought this project could get as far as Stockton's.  As it stands right now it won't get past the Raise Capital phase, owing to a certain founder's refusal to entertain the idea of....  checks notes   performing any cost optimization whatsoever. 



Anyway this back-and-forth has produced heat, but shed very little light. I still can't see any good economic or engineering reason to prefer your "X" station over Vast's more economical "stick" design. The fact that an X is bigger is still a bug not a feature. There's a reason why Minimum Viable Product is a thing.

[Twark_Main]

I still can't see any good economic or engineering reason to prefer your "X" station over Vast's more economical "stick" design. The fact that an X is bigger is still a bug not a feature. There's a reason why Minimum Viable Product is a thing.

If anything, my concern is that Vast may have oversized (not undersized) the MVP here. The real MVP might be a closer to MARS.

For full-sized human data, Musk will be on Mars soon enough. He certainly won't be waiting around for a AG testbed!

[Coastal Ron]

A relevant article today:

Former astronaut says it’s “extremely important” to study artificial gravity | Ars Technica

The article is focused on Garrett Reisman, who spent time on the ISS, worked for SpaceX, and is now a "human spaceflight advisor" to Vast Space.

Relevant quote from the article, after reviewing some of the negative side effects discovered regarding zero gravity:

"It is possible that, with even just a small application of gravity, we'll be able to solve some of these problems," Reisman said. "But we don't know. Artificial gravity space stations are a way to figure out what happens in between."

And:

"It's extremely important," Reisman said. "From a scientific perspective, we have lots of data at one g, where we have billions of data points of how the human body works in this environment. And we have a decent amount of data points at zero g based largely from the ISS experience. But we have nothing in between one and zero." The lunar landings during the Apollo program were short enough to essentially provide no meaningful data.

Reisman thinks that Vast is the first credible organization to be working on a path toward artificial gravity space stations, and it is hard to argue against that. They have money, they have engineering resources, and regardless of what we may think of their conceptual images, they likely have used real engineering to validate their concepts.

They have their approach, and no doubt there will likely be room for other approaches too. We definitely need hard data about how much, or how little, gravity humans need to work in space, and eventually live in space.

Thoughts?

[jongoff]

A relevant article today:

Former astronaut says it’s “extremely important” to study artificial gravity | Ars Technica

The article is focused on Garrett Reisman, who spent time on the ISS, worked for SpaceX, and is now a "human spaceflight advisor" to Vast Space.

Relevant quote from the article, after reviewing some of the negative side effects discovered regarding zero gravity:

"It is possible that, with even just a small application of gravity, we'll be able to solve some of these problems," Reisman said. "But we don't know. Artificial gravity space stations are a way to figure out what happens in between."

And:

"It's extremely important," Reisman said. "From a scientific perspective, we have lots of data at one g, where we have billions of data points of how the human body works in this environment. And we have a decent amount of data points at zero g based largely from the ISS experience. But we have nothing in between one and zero." The lunar landings during the Apollo program were short enough to essentially provide no meaningful data.

Reisman thinks that Vast is the first credible organization to be working on a path toward artificial gravity space stations, and it is hard to argue against that. They have money, they have engineering resources, and regardless of what we may think of their conceptual images, they likely have used real engineering to validate their concepts.

They have their approach, and no doubt there will likely be room for other approaches too. We definitely need hard data about how much, or how little, gravity humans need to work in space, and eventually live in space.

Thoughts?

This may come as no surprise to those who know me, but I was really happy to see this. I've been making the point in the second quote, about us not having any good human health data between µG and 1G, for almost 20yrs now (see about halfway through this blog post from 2005: https://selenianboondocks.com/2005/11/if-youre-going-to-be-snarky/), and it's good seeing that idea getting more attention. I'm also happy to see the number of shots on goal there are for companies trying to develop artificial gravity facilities. Whether it's Vast or someone else, it's embarrassing we don't have more data on hypogravity impact on human health.

~Jon

[Coastal Ron]

This may come as no surprise to those who know me, but I was really happy to see this. I've been making the point in the second quote, about us not having any good human health data between µG and 1G, for almost 20yrs now (see about halfway through this blog post from 2005: https://selenianboondocks.com/2005/11/if-youre-going-to-be-snarky/), and it's good seeing that idea getting more attention.

It is apparently tough to get attention on this topic when the vast amount of money is going to keep people safely employed at NASA and a large web of government contractors. So kudos for trying for so long!

The U.S. Government lacks a true vision for our future in space beyond flags & footprint type missions. As we've seen with the International Space Station (ISS), space stations provide a continuous occupation of space, so if the goal is to expand humanity out into space one of the ways to do that is on space stations.

But we know that zero gravity is detrimental to human health, so the next logical step should be to figure out how much we can mitigate those detrimental health effects by staying or living in gravity that is far less than Earth normal gravity. And this would actually support the activities of staying on the Moon, since we can know ahead of time how long humans can stay on the Moon, Mars, or any micro-gravity environment.

I'm also happy to see the number of shots on goal there are for companies trying to develop artificial gravity facilities. Whether it's Vast or someone else, it's embarrassing we don't have more data on hypogravity impact on human health.

Ideas on forums like NasaSpaceFlight are fun, and could even be insightful, but committed individuals with money is FAR better. I'll be cheering for Vast, and whoever else commits to artificial gravity experiments.

[rsdavis9]

I have a question/suggestion:

Spacex likes to do something instead of testing to death.
So in that vein is it better to answer the question by just going to mars and living there?
If it turns out to have problems in .37g then you just rotate people like you do on the space station.
So the question becomes, is it easier to go to mars or build a rotating space station?

[Coastal Ron]

I have a question/suggestion:

Spacex likes to do something instead of testing to death.

Much of what SpaceX does is testing. Virtually all of the Starship program so far has been testing, with no operational flights. SpaceX will do testing while doing operational flights, as they did with Falcon 9, but they are not against doing tests.

So in that vein is it better to answer the question by just going to mars and living there?
If it turns out to have problems in .37g then you just rotate people like you do on the space station.
So the question becomes, is it easier to go to mars or build a rotating space station?

The effort to colonize Mars will be a data point, and Mars is a place that can't change the test parameters, unlike a rotating space station that could speed up or slow down it's rotational speed.

The same could be said for our Moon - would it be cheaper to just build a permanent research station on our Moon for gravity health effect studies?

And of course the answer to both questions is "Yes", both could be done. But we don't know for sure if they will be done, or when, or if it would be cheaper to build a rotating space station testbed to find out ahead of time.

It all boils down to money, who has it, and what their needs are. Both of which are unknowns at this time...

[punder]

Rotating AG facilities can be built on planetary surfaces as well. We've had high speed trains and banked racetracks for a while. And a centrifuge used to come to my hometown every summer.

[rsdavis9]

Rotating AG facilities can be built on planetary surfaces as well. We've had high speed trains and banked racetracks for a while. And a centrifuge used to come to my hometown every summer.

But  it needs to be built on the moon, mars, or space station.

[edzieba]

Rotating AG facilities can be built on planetary surfaces as well. We've had high speed trains and banked racetracks for a while. And a centrifuge used to come to my hometown every summer.

That only gets you AG from 1g upwards. If you want to work between 0g and 1g, planet-side centrifuges are no good.

[Robotbeat]

Rotating AG facilities can be built on planetary surfaces as well. We've had high speed trains and banked racetracks for a while. And a centrifuge used to come to my hometown every summer.

That only gets you AG from 1g upwards. If you want to work between 0g and 1g, planet-side centrifuges are no good.

Theyre talking about on the Moon or Mars, too, not just Earth.

[Genial Precis]

Earth-based >1g facilities might be interesting for gaining experience if you could get sports money to pay for them. Obviously wouldn't be very faithful to space stations, but some aspects would be similar, it would be much easier to get off the ground, and if you could draw on a completely different pool of interest and investors it might be worth doing.

[Paul451]

Earth-based >1g facilities might be interesting for gaining experience if you could get sports money to pay for them.

They already exist, but people don't live on them (specifically to avoid adapting to a rotating frame-of-reference). So you aren't learning anything about the shape-of-the-health-curve above 1g that might give clues to the shape of the part of the curve below 1g.

[I tried googling it, but google is garbage these days. From memory, it was a Russian or eastern European thing. Adds weight to the whole body for resistance training for strength/endurance sports. Supposedly better than conventional weight training.]

[edzieba]

There are US-based centrifuge labs too (e.g. The Ashton Graybiel Spatial Orientation lab).

[JohnFornaro]

google is garbage these days

To the extent that google AI is based on false premises, then it would follow that its responses could be more inaccurate than one would hope.

https://futurism.com/the-byte/researchers-gpt-4-accuracy

[LMT]

Cross-post:  Some encouraging preliminary results for Martian AG, from the multiple artificial-gravity research system (MARS).

[Lampyridae]

Another poster at ASGS 2023:

B-SURE: Rhodium Enables Space Biomanufacturing for DARPA Utilizing a Moon and Mars Variable Gravity Simulator on the ISS (IN96)

Abstract:
Rhodium Scientific’s Biomanufacturing Program includes the DARPA Biomanufacturing: Survival, Utility, and Reliability beyond Earth (B-SURE) initiative. The first mission (Rhodium DARPA Biomanufacturing 01) for a team led by the University of Florida (UF) launched on SpaceX-27 to characterize the impact of micro-, lunar and Martian gravity levels on biomanufacturing systems. Previous work has shown that microgravity provides a selection pressure for microbes, resulting in both genotypic and phenotypic changes, with some alterations being conserved after microbes are returned to Earth. In addition, changes observed within the transcriptome provide insight into previously unknown cellular capabilities that may enhance terrestrial biomanufacturing processes through targeted strain development. While microgravity-induced mutations in the genome and alterations in gene expression have been observed, the impact of different gravity regimes to be experienced on the Moon and Mars has not been characterized within a biomanufacturing context.

In support of the first space flight for the DARPA B-SURE Program, Rhodium provided the UF variable gravity team access to the Quality, Industry Compatible (QuIC) Space Process™, the Rhodium Science Chamber Facilities, and the Rhodium Variable Gravity Simulator. This combination of science protocol optimization, flight readiness preparation, and proven hardware portfolio permitted a rapid launch sequence on SpaceX-27 only 3.5 months from project start. Two more missions will launch on SpaceX Crew-7 and SpaceX-29 to test culture condition variations and genetic modifications that improve biomanufacturing performance. To date, Rhodium’s Biomanufacturing Program has successfully completed five ISS missions, with another three missions scheduled in 2023. In the presentation, we will provide information on the hardware used for the B-SURE mission and pre-flight preparation activities. We will describe how other initiatives can benefit from Rhodium’s Biomanufacturing Program. Rhodium has established a reproducible, reliable biomanufacturing paradigm to make targeted products in the microgravity environment that have benefit on Earth and in space.

[acksed]

A suggestion.

If you can't get a custom habitat for a spin-gravity lab, how about off-the-shelf? Sierra Space is developing the LIFE habitat, a 9m-wide inflatable module that makes the old Bigelow concept into reality.

It's a ready-made torus. Spin that 9m fabric doughnut up to 5.75rpm, and you can easily simulate lunar gravity on a macro scale.

It's certainly tough enough, as the structure was tested to 4.5 atmospheres and beyond before bursting.

Future structures are planned that expand out to 19m wide and 22 metres long. At that size, Mars' 0.38g gravity is available at 5.9rpm, just within human tolerances.