NASASpaceFlight.com Forum

SLS / Orion / Beyond-LEO HSF - Constellation => Missions To Mars (HSF) => Topic started by: lcasv on 05/01/2017 07:57 PM

Title: Zero gravity and Deep Space Habitat
Post by: lcasv on 05/01/2017 07:57 PM
We all know the consequences of long-term exposure to weightlessness.
Two examples:

" In 1984, after a 237-day mission, Soviet cosmonauts felt that if they had stayed in space much longer they might not have survived reentry [3]. In 1987, in the later stages of his 326-day mission, Yuri Romanenko was highly fatigued, both physically and mentally. His work day was reduced to 4.5 hours while his sleep period was extended to 9 hours and daily exercise on a bicycle and treadmill consumed 2.5 hours. At the end of the mission, the Soviets implemented the unusual procedure of sending up a "safety pilot" to escort Romanenko back to Earth"
Many of these changes do not pose problems as long as the crew remains in a weightless environment. Trouble ensues upon the return to life with gravity. The rapid deceleration during reentry is especially stressful as the apparent gravity grows from zero to more than one "g" in a matter of minutes.

So, zero gravity has to be solved before thinking in long trips.There is not reason spend billions with out getting artificial gravity.
Copy from permanent.com

Title: Re: Zero gravity and Deep Space Habitat
Post by: whitelancer64 on 05/01/2017 08:28 PM
Counterpoint:

After spending 437 days in space (on Mir in 1994-1995) Valeri Polyakov got out of his Soyuz capsule and walked to the recovery couch. "Upon landing, Polyakov opted not to be carried the few feet between the Soyuz capsule and a nearby lawn chair, instead walking the short distance. In doing so, he wished to prove that humans could be physically capable of working on the surface of Mars after a long-duration transit phase."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Valeri_Polyakov

Nearly all astronauts are able to walk and do other activities after a short period of resting to allow blood flow and other bodily fluids to normalize with Earth's gravity.

Zero gravity does come with some negative side effects, but astronauts are typically not incapacitated by them. One of the major breakthroughs on the ISS has been to show that consistent daily exercise reduces muscular and skeletal atrophy. Most other side effects are minor or irritating (like flatulence) but aren't really a big hazard to human health.

In short, there's little reason to spend billions designing, building, testing a rotating spacecraft to go to Mars when all the evidence suggests that we'd be pretty much fine even with 6-8 months of weightlessness.
Title: Re: Zero gravity and Deep Space Habitat
Post by: lcasv on 05/01/2017 08:54 PM
Agree with you, spending billions in rotating spacecraft is to much. Better solution is a simple arrangement to test artificial gravity. Check this file what is your opinion.
Title: Re: Zero gravity and Deep Space Habitat
Post by: TripD on 05/02/2017 12:09 AM
Quote
Nearly all astronauts are able to walk and do other activities after a short period of resting to allow blood flow and other bodily fluids to normalize with Earth's gravity.

I only take issue with this in that, upon landing on Mars there may be a need for the crew to have 'pep' in their step.
Title: Re: Zero gravity and Deep Space Habitat
Post by: whitelancer64 on 05/02/2017 09:35 PM
Agree with you, spending billions in rotating spacecraft is to much. Better solution is a simple arrangement to test artificial gravity. Check this file what is your opinion.

Two things:

One, this presentation doesn't look simple at all. It looks like there's a large amount of structure along with many moving parts.

Two, you say it's "a new approach," but it looks very much like many other proposals I have seen before.
Title: Re: Zero gravity and Deep Space Habitat
Post by: whitelancer64 on 05/02/2017 09:39 PM
Quote
Nearly all astronauts are able to walk and do other activities after a short period of resting to allow blood flow and other bodily fluids to normalize with Earth's gravity.

I only take issue with this in that, upon landing on Mars there may be a need for the crew to have 'pep' in their step.

I don't think there's any way around it. The astronauts are going to have to spend some period of time in a weightless environment prior to Mars EDL (I'd say at least a couple weeks to avoid having space-sick people during EDL), and so they'll need to spend some time resting to reacclimatize to gravity. The major reason is to avoid the astronauts passing out from blood draining away from the head.
Title: Re: Zero gravity and Deep Space Habitat
Post by: KelvinZero on 05/12/2017 07:06 AM
One of my pet ideas is VR booths.

Even if you had gravity, that isn't the same as space or reason to walk or run. VR could give you the impression of a large open expanse to explore, something you would never be able to physically build into a spaceship.

The current approach of elastic bands and treadmills seems reasonable to me. I think that should be enough to solve most issues. But instead of a couple of hours exercise a day I think you could aim for a set up comfortable and entertaining enough for people to spend 8 hours a day in, in a choice of vast shared (or private) environments.

Also these vr booths could be useful for teleoperation and entertainment at the destination.

I think this is a really important, solvable problem. People could possibly live healthily (including mental health) in volumes no larger than what they can reach with outstretched arms. There is no fundamental obstacle like the rocket equation.
Title: Re: Zero gravity and Deep Space Habitat
Post by: mikelepage on 05/13/2017 04:53 AM
Several threads already exist for this topic in the advanced section:

The big one, that we agreed to limit to discussion of human space flight spin gravity demos:
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=34036.0

The thread I started specifically for Non human space flight engineering/bio demos:
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=39358.0

As well as:
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=37026.0
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=37025.0
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=40448.0
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=39971.0

As a counter-counterpoint to Valeri Polyakov (who is always brought up in these conversations) it is worth noting that the muscular/skeletal problems of microgravity are both the first to occur and the easiest to solve.

The serious clinical symptoms of zero-gravity are only expected to occur (in adults) after multiple years of microgravity:
(http://img.medscapestatic.com/article/735/035/735035-fig1.jpg?interpolation=lanczos-none&resize=600:*)

Also, mammalian pregnancy is adversely affected,
http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0006753
as is immune system function and eye function.

The point is that 2-3 year Mars missions are probably quite possible with regular exercise as used on ISS.  Mars/Moon/Space colonisation probably isn't, so spin gravity is a problem we will have to solve, sooner or later.

Icasv, your plan is a 2+ billion dollar mission.  We can do better.
Title: Re: Zero gravity and Deep Space Habitat
Post by: guckyfan on 05/13/2017 05:33 AM
The point is that 2-3 year Mars missions are probably quite possible with regular exercise as used on ISS. 

OK.

Mars/Moon/Space colonisation probably isn't, so spin gravity is a problem we will have to solve, sooner or later.

How do you get to this conclusion?
Title: Re: Zero gravity and Deep Space Habitat
Post by: mikelepage on 05/13/2017 08:08 AM
Mars/Moon/Space colonisation probably isn't, so spin gravity is a problem we will have to solve, sooner or later.

How do you get to this conclusion?

Never been a colony without babies.
For that matter, there's never been life (that we know of) that didn't have 1xg.

Null hypothesis has to be that at least some gravity is required for sustained life (=colonisation).  An n of ~530 healthy adults, all of which had some symptoms directly resulting from absence of gravity for even short periods of time, does nothing to disprove the null hypothesis.  Extrapolating from current data suggests that even in healthy adults with regular exercise regimes, symptoms will reach clinical significance after microgravity stays of 3+ years.

This ain't rocket science.  Launching spin-gravity habitats is only limited by mass/launch costs, so the obvious solution ain't rocket science either.
Title: Re: Zero gravity and Deep Space Habitat
Post by: guckyfan on 05/13/2017 08:43 AM
Never been a colony without babies.

You are applying data points of microgravity to Mars gravity. Not a defendable position.

This ain't rocket science.  Launching spin-gravity habitats is only limited by mass/launch costs, so the obvious solution ain't rocket science either.

Don't make up needs for a Mars colony like this. There is no supporting data whatsovever indicating that something that complex is needed. Talk about it once there are data and they show it is needed.
Title: Re: Zero gravity and Deep Space Habitat
Post by: mikelepage on 05/13/2017 10:26 AM
Never been a colony without babies.

You are applying data points of microgravity to Mars gravity. Not a defendable position.

A null hypothesis is the only defensible position until new evidence comes to light.  We only have solid data for 1xg.  I'm not saying we shouldn't try to get that new evidence at Mars gravity btw, just that its irresponsible to plan your mission on the hunch that it will be okay.

Quote
This ain't rocket science.  Launching spin-gravity habitats is only limited by mass/launch costs, so the obvious solution ain't rocket science either.

Don't make up needs for a Mars colony like this. There is no supporting data whatsovever indicating that something that complex is needed. Talk about it once there are data and they show it is needed.

We can make predictions based on what we know about biology.  Even the simplest multicellular organisms are acutely aware of up/down directionality.  Developing embryos/seedlings/spores use this sense to structure growth and development.  Given that most biological sensors are not binary on/off switches, but sensors of degree, it would be incredibly surprising if there weren't some issues with partial Mars gravity. 

The experiments on Mars will be to figure out how to stop these issues being show-stoppers, not whether they are problems in the first place.  The complexity with spin gravity is minor compared to the whole Mars endeavour anyway, so I find the resistance to the concept puzzling.
Title: Re: Zero gravity and Deep Space Habitat
Post by: guckyfan on 05/13/2017 11:53 AM
The complexity with spin gravity is minor compared to the whole Mars endeavour anyway, so I find the resistance to the concept puzzling.

I find it puzzling how people insist on AG without a trace of evidence it is needed.
Title: Re: Zero gravity and Deep Space Habitat
Post by: lcasv on 05/13/2017 12:38 PM
"Things that are not sustainable in the long run will fail".There are not shortcuts.
Title: Re: Zero gravity and Deep Space Habitat
Post by: Aussie_Space_Nut on 05/14/2017 12:12 AM
It freaks me out that people are seriously planning going to Mars without first doing an artificial Mars gravity long term stay experiment somewhere, somehow.

I would have thought this would be at the very least a massive risk to any "Mars Colony Business Plan" if nothing else.
Title: Re: Zero gravity and Deep Space Habitat
Post by: lcasv on 05/14/2017 12:21 AM
100 % agree.Many things can happen about health in 500 days in zero gravity
Title: Re: Zero gravity and Deep Space Habitat
Post by: lcasv on 05/14/2017 01:14 AM

Aussie_space_nut:

what do you think about this arrangement:

Title: Re: Zero gravity and Deep Space Habitat
Post by: guckyfan on 05/14/2017 04:50 AM
It freaks me out that people are seriously planning going to Mars without first doing an artificial Mars gravity long term stay experiment somewhere, somehow.

I would have thought this would be at the very least a massive risk to any "Mars Colony Business Plan" if nothing else.

There is a risk to it, yes. But do you seriously believe it is feasible to build a space station and let people live there for many years? It takes at least as much time as 10 years to establish a child can grow up healthy. Better really for a whole generation. That's absurd in cost and time. Much better to go to Mars and try it there.

If you mean just some short generation animal tests with mice or such, I agree. That should be done and I hope it will be done during a long term test flight of ITS in cislunar space.
Title: Re: Zero gravity and Deep Space Habitat
Post by: mikelepage on 05/14/2017 05:00 AM
The complexity with spin gravity is minor compared to the whole Mars endeavour anyway, so I find the resistance to the concept puzzling.

I find it puzzling how people insist on AG without a trace of evidence it is needed.

I'm curious what you think the threshold is then? We have strong evidence that long term zero-gravity exposure is harmful long-term in spite of regular exercise, and three centuries of biology research will tell you these effects always exist on a sliding scale.

So if you're sure enough that Mars (38.9%) gravity is okay to plan a long-term mission without spin-g, do you think Moon-gravity (16.6%) is okay long term? What about Ceres surface gravity (2.8%)?  Or Phobos surface gravity (0.6%)?
Title: Re: Zero gravity and Deep Space Habitat
Post by: Coastal Ron on 05/14/2017 05:26 AM
The purpose of the ISS is to collect information about the effects of zero-G on humans, and to test solutions.  However we have not had a large enough sample size to truly understand what the effects will be on random humans during potential missions to Mars.

And since any crews being sent to Mars will likely consist of both men and women, it's important to know that men and women don't experience the same side effects from zero-G.  Here is an article that talks about it:

We're Ignoring Women Astronauts' Health At Our Peril (http://gizmodo.com/were-ignoring-women-astronauts-health-at-our-peril-1795125973) - Gizmodo

Nevertheless I think there will be plenty of qualified volunteers that will be willing to go, because that is human nature at it's best - willing to take risks in order to benefit humanity as a whole.

And while I think initially we will not use artificial gravity systems due to their great cost, I think eventually they will be required by humanity in order to mitigate the long-term effects of no or reduced gravity on the human body as we expand out into the solar system.  Going to be a few years before we can build artificial gravity structures though, so we're going to have to rely on volunteers to help us understand what the limits of the human body are...
Title: Re: Zero gravity and Deep Space Habitat
Post by: guckyfan on 05/14/2017 08:52 AM
The complexity with spin gravity is minor compared to the whole Mars endeavour anyway, so I find the resistance to the concept puzzling.

I find it puzzling how people insist on AG without a trace of evidence it is needed.

I'm curious what you think the threshold is then? We have strong evidence that long term zero-gravity exposure is harmful long-term in spite of regular exercise, and three centuries of biology research will tell you these effects always exist on a sliding scale.

So if you're sure enough that Mars (38.9%) gravity is okay to plan a long-term mission without spin-g, do you think Moon-gravity (16.6%) is okay long term? What about Ceres surface gravity (2.8%)?  Or Phobos surface gravity (0.6%)?

I am not sure Mars gravity is enough. But I think there is a very good chance. Humans have proven over and over to be very adaptable. With moon gravity I am less confident but whoever is interested in settling the moon can try that.

I just say doing a multi year test with humans in spin gravity is absurd and absurdly expensive in money and time. It needs to be done on Mars.

Spin gravity for pregnancies on Mars may technically not the biggest obstacle. But it would be a severe disruption of social life and much harder to justify and find people willing to go there. Spin gravity for in space settlements no doubt is needed. Multi year manned expeditions to the outer solar system may or may not require it. I guess yes it will be needed with flight times beyond 2 or 3 years.
Title: Re: Zero gravity and Deep Space Habitat
Post by: Aussie_Space_Nut on 05/14/2017 10:16 AM

Aussie_space_nut:

what do you think about this arrangement:



I'm a big fan of keeping things as simple as possible. So having moving "cars" travelling between habs etc I think is just way too complicated. Especially if things go wrong. I like the idea of a fixed and ridgid structure that would allow you to move anywhere inside just in normal clothes.

Nothing is impossible if you throw enough resources at it I suppose.

But I think a fixed structure is way easier to engineer in a safe manner than what you propose which has multiple opportunities for a docking failure, a car to get stuck, etc. Therefore you have to plan for a way to rescue the occupants both in the car and those stranded elsewhere.
Title: Re: Zero gravity and Deep Space Habitat
Post by: mikelepage on 05/15/2017 06:13 AM
I am not sure Mars gravity is enough. But I think there is a very good chance. Humans have proven over and over to be very adaptable. With moon gravity I am less confident but whoever is interested in settling the moon can try that.

I just say doing a multi year test with humans in spin gravity is absurd and absurdly expensive in money and time. It needs to be done on Mars.

Spin gravity for pregnancies on Mars may technically not the biggest obstacle. But it would be a severe disruption of social life and much harder to justify and find people willing to go there. Spin gravity for in space settlements no doubt is needed. Multi year manned expeditions to the outer solar system may or may not require it. I guess yes it will be needed with flight times beyond 2 or 3 years.

Emphasis mine, just to point out that you can't say I have no evidence that low gravity on Mars is harmful, and then come out with a statement like that ;)

I agree humans are adaptable, but Mars gravity is nearly down to a third of biological norms.  I struggle to think of any situation where humans have shown themselves to be that adaptable for long-term undertakings. 

Caloric restriction diets of typically only cut 20-40% of calories, since 50% restriction diets (in rodents at least) attract mortality rates of 50%.  The highest altitude where people have adapted to living (Everest Base camp =6000m) is ~50% atmospheric pressure, and that's only after generations of Nepalese sherpas have become used to living upwards of 4000m. (I choose these examples because these are both things where "mind over matter" runs up against strict biological limits).

In answer to my own question above, I'm guessing the threshold for long-term low gravity adaptation (at least in the first generation of space travellers) is somewhere between 50-75% of Earth gravity, perhaps even as high as 90%.  I would bet that long term colonisation or Mars is going to need a multigenerational adaptation process.

Or perhaps humans will (for the foreseeable future) be like salmon returning upstream to spawn, needing to return to near-1g spin habitats in Mars orbit in order to have children.
Title: Re: Zero gravity and Deep Space Habitat
Post by: guckyfan on 05/15/2017 07:10 AM

Emphasis mine, just to point out that you can't say I have no evidence that low gravity on Mars is harmful, and then come out with a statement like that ;)

This is getting annoying. My statements are totally consistent. I I never said we have positive proof either direction. It is you who demands a huge cost layout in money and time to try this in AG that IMO are better done in the real martian environment.

Just imagine having an AG environment set up and maintained long enough that children can be born and raised there, just to prepare for getting to Mars, on the assumption it will fail.

Title: Re: Zero gravity and Deep Space Habitat
Post by: Welsh Dragon on 05/15/2017 09:38 AM
<snip>
For that matter, there's never been life (that we know of) that didn't have 1xg.

<snip>
Except of course all aquatic life.
Title: Re: Zero gravity and Deep Space Habitat
Post by: mikelepage on 05/15/2017 10:11 AM
<snip>
For that matter, there's never been life (that we know of) that didn't have 1xg.

<snip>
Except of course all aquatic life.

Neutral buoyancy !=! zero gravity.

Title: Re: Zero gravity and Deep Space Habitat
Post by: mikelepage on 05/15/2017 10:31 AM

Emphasis mine, just to point out that you can't say I have no evidence that low gravity on Mars is harmful, and then come out with a statement like that ;)

This is getting annoying. My statements are totally consistent. I I never said we have positive proof either direction. It is you who demands a huge cost layout in money and time to try this in AG that IMO are better done in the real martian environment.

Just imagine having an AG environment set up and maintained long enough that children can be born and raised there, just to prepare for getting to Mars, on the assumption it will fail.

Yes it is getting annoying.  It is you saying I'm demanding things I've never asked for.  :(

By all means, I hope SpaceX/NASA/whoever will get to Mars as soon as possible, without AG, because that will most likely be the easiest/quickest way to get it done.  Do science on Mars, explore etc etc.  I'm the last person to get in the way of that.

That said, myself and many other evolutionary biology trained types are dubious about the gravity situation.  We suspect there's a very good chance that some kind of spin gravity will be necessary.  So, in parallel with Mars efforts, we want to set up a lab in LEO/wherever to do AG research, such that if the less-optimistic scenario turns out to be true, we've got a head start on the years of work that will need doing.  If Mars gravity turns out to be fine, then none of the work is wasted anyway, because it helps us build space settlements.

There need not be any conflict between our positions.  I'm just trying to get you to acknowledge where I'm coming from.
Title: Re: Zero gravity and Deep Space Habitat
Post by: Welsh Dragon on 05/15/2017 12:39 PM
<snip>
For that matter, there's never been life (that we know of) that didn't have 1xg.

<snip>
Except of course all aquatic life.

Neutral buoyancy !=! zero gravity.
Of course not. But as far as adaptations required for it, it's effectively the same.
Title: Re: Zero gravity and Deep Space Habitat
Post by: A_M_Swallow on 05/15/2017 12:56 PM
<snip>
For that matter, there's never been life (that we know of) that didn't have 1xg.

<snip>
Except of course all aquatic life.

Neutral buoyancy !=! zero gravity.
Of course not. But as far as adaptations required for it, it's effectively the same.

Not necessarily. Mammals and fish are nearly symmetrical left to right but they are very different top to bottom. So individual cells and entire organs probably need to know where they are vertically. Even in water gravity can be used to determine which way is up and which may is down - an inert mass will try to sink to the bottom of the cell.
Title: Re: Zero gravity and Deep Space Habitat
Post by: RonM on 05/15/2017 04:52 PM
A small base on the Moon would allow research into medical effects of 1/6 gee in addition to lunar exploration. It would be interesting to see if such a low gravity reduces or eliminates the issues we have in microgravity. It would provide a third data point to extrapolate the effects of Mars gravity to give us an idea before we run experiments on Mars.

There's international support for some sort of gateway station in lunar orbit. A gateway station and reusable lander would make lunar exploration easier.

SpaceX could land an ITS ship on the Moon, let it sit for a few months as a temporary base, and go back to Earth. They probably want to do some cislunar testing before heading to Mars anyway.
Title: Re: Zero gravity and Deep Space Habitat
Post by: lcasv on 06/04/2017 12:47 AM
HEALTH IS FIRST,HEALTH IS SECOND.... RUSH IS A MISTAKE. AG MUST BE IMPLEMENTED FIRST.
Title: Re: Zero gravity and Deep Space Habitat
Post by: guckyfan on 06/04/2017 06:39 AM
A small base on the Moon would allow research into medical effects of 1/6 gee in addition to lunar exploration. It would be interesting to see if such a low gravity reduces or eliminates the issues we have in microgravity. It would provide a third data point to extrapolate the effects of Mars gravity to give us an idea before we run experiments on Mars.

There's international support for some sort of gateway station in lunar orbit. A gateway station and reusable lander would make lunar exploration easier.

SpaceX could land an ITS ship on the Moon, let it sit for a few months as a temporary base, and go back to Earth. They probably want to do some cislunar testing before heading to Mars anyway.

I don't think an ITS can loiter on the moon for extended time and then relaunch. Moon day heat from the sun will evaporate the propellant.

I admit I don't like the idea to use moon data to extrapolate to Mars. That may be way off. Worst case  it would give inaccurate arguments against Mars. For Mars research go to Mars, not to the moon.
Title: Re: Zero gravity and Deep Space Habitat
Post by: Jim on 06/05/2017 12:51 AM

Of course not. But as far as adaptations required for it, it's effectively the same.

No where close to the same thing.  There is still a gravity field and it still affects living organizations.  You don't see fish swimming in all different orientations.
Title: Re: Zero gravity and Deep Space Habitat
Post by: Paul451 on 06/05/2017 05:01 PM
Very belated response:

Counterpoint:
After spending 437 days in space (on Mir in 1994-1995) Valeri Polyakov got out of his Soyuz capsule and walked to the recovery couch.

The test for orthostatic intolerance is not walking a short distance while still on an adrenalin high from a high-g EDL. Rather, it is a measure of the length of time you can stand upright, with a heart-rate around your resting BPM. Ten minutes is the minimum to be considered free of the condition.

Most astronauts experience some degree of orthostatic intolerance. Typically requiring one day of recovery time per mission day. However, the susceptibility varies wildly between individuals and is largely unpredictable on the ground in advance. And even recovery is kind of random, some astronauts will be considered fully recovered and cleared, but weeks later will have a random fainting spell. (And it may be worse than reported because it might damage your chances of reflight, so there's a cultural tendency to hide such issues.)

Flight surgeons I've seen speak on the subject consider micro-g adaptation to be a significant problem. Essentially, "the more we learn, the worse we realise it is."

[Worse, astronauts are strongly selected against anything that might be considered a health risk or susceptibility, based on very ad hoc standards created since the '50s (which are as much gut-feel educated guesses as actual science-based.) Long duration spaceflight research therefore has a strong selection bias that is out of the hands of researchers. So what we are "learning" may be garbage due to the lack of ability to do a proper cohort selection.]

In short, there's little reason to spend billions designing, building, testing a rotating spacecraft to go to Mars

We're already spending billions/yr on a micro-g station which isn't capable of producing high quality human weightlessness research.

As for the cost of an AG Mars transfer vessel: Because of the lack of research into low gravity and spin gravity, we don't know what the optimum numbers are (G-load/RPM). If humans only need a trace of artificial gravity, and can adapt to a fairly high RPM, then it may be that a simple tumbling-pigeon rotation of any MTV would be enough. Or for a large ship like ITS-BFS, even rotation around the long axis could be enough. No giant wheels or risky tethers required.

And such rotation may also simplify systems engineering. Water processing, air circulation and filtering, fuel transfer, sanitary systems, etc. (Prop-tank ullage only needs a milli-g load to settle the liquids. Other systems may be the same.) Simplified engineering, lower costs.

Spending a relatively small amount now to produce data on AG, might save money in the long run.
Title: Re: Zero gravity and Deep Space Habitat
Post by: lcasv on 06/06/2017 01:24 AM
PAUL 451:AGREE WITH YOU .CHECK THIS ARRANGEMENT 
Title: Re: Zero gravity and Deep Space Habitat
Post by: Paul451 on 06/06/2017 02:15 PM
PAUL 451:AGREE WITH YOU .CHECK THIS ARRANGEMENT

You've spammed your PDF three times in two pages. Enough.
Title: Re: Zero gravity and Deep Space Habitat
Post by: whitelancer64 on 06/06/2017 02:43 PM
Very belated response:

Counterpoint:
After spending 437 days in space (on Mir in 1994-1995) Valeri Polyakov got out of his Soyuz capsule and walked to the recovery couch.

The test for orthostatic intolerance is not walking a short distance while still on an adrenalin high from a high-g EDL. Rather, it is a measure of the length of time you can stand upright, with a heart-rate around your resting BPM. Ten minutes is the minimum to be considered free of the condition.

Most astronauts experience some degree of orthostatic intolerance. Typically requiring one day of recovery time per mission day. However, the susceptibility varies wildly between individuals and is largely unpredictable on the ground in advance. And even recovery is kind of random, some astronauts will be considered fully recovered and cleared, but weeks later will have a random fainting spell. (And it may be worse than reported because it might damage your chances of reflight, so there's a cultural tendency to hide such issues.)

Flight surgeons I've seen speak on the subject consider micro-g adaptation to be a significant problem. Essentially, "the more we learn, the worse we realise it is."

[Worse, astronauts are strongly selected against anything that might be considered a health risk or susceptibility, based on very ad hoc standards created since the '50s (which are as much gut-feel educated guesses as actual science-based.) Long duration spaceflight research therefore has a strong selection bias that is out of the hands of researchers. So what we are "learning" may be garbage due to the lack of ability to do a proper cohort selection.]

In short, there's little reason to spend billions designing, building, testing a rotating spacecraft to go to Mars

We're already spending billions/yr on a micro-g station which isn't capable of producing high quality human weightlessness research.

As for the cost of an AG Mars transfer vessel: Because of the lack of research into low gravity and spin gravity, we don't know what the optimum numbers are (G-load/RPM). If humans only need a trace of artificial gravity, and can adapt to a fairly high RPM, then it may be that a simple tumbling-pigeon rotation of any MTV would be enough. Or for a large ship like ITS-BFS, even rotation around the long axis could be enough. No giant wheels or risky tethers required.

And such rotation may also simplify systems engineering. Water processing, air circulation and filtering, fuel transfer, sanitary systems, etc. (Prop-tank ullage only needs a milli-g load to settle the liquids. Other systems may be the same.) Simplified engineering, lower costs.

Spending a relatively small amount now to produce data on AG, might save money in the long run.

You seem to have missed these parts of my comment:

"Zero gravity does come with some negative side effects, but astronauts are typically not incapacitated by them ... all the evidence suggests that we'd be pretty much fine even with 6-8 months of weightlessness."

I agree that artificial gravity tests would pay dividends later on. The OP's argument is A. weightlessness is an insurmountable obstacle to going to Mars and thus B. build my rotating space station.
Title: Re: Zero gravity and Deep Space Habitat
Post by: gospacex on 06/06/2017 02:59 PM
AG is also possible on Mars.
Title: Re: Zero gravity and Deep Space Habitat
Post by: Coastal Ron on 06/06/2017 03:21 PM
AG is also possible on Mars.

While true, I think artificial gravity would be significantly more complex to do on a planet with a partial gravity than it would in zero gravity. And if you have to haul the AG construction components from Earth it would make sense to just have an artificial gravity station in space around the destination planet in question than to consume fuel in taking that mass down to the planet surface.

My $0.02
Title: Re: Zero gravity and Deep Space Habitat
Post by: Paul451 on 06/06/2017 06:01 PM
You seem to have missed these parts of my comment:
" [...] all the evidence suggests [...] "

Except you didn't respond with evidence, you responded with an anecdote of an astronaut being capable of walking for a short distance to a couch.

The statements of flight surgeons, the published research, and the comments from astronauts describing their recovery, (all discussed ad-nauseam in previous threads), suggests that the damage caused by weightlessness is worse than previously thought. We keep finding new issues, including new long term post-"recovery" damage.

Given the relatively low cost of testing AG (especially animal testing as a precursor), and the relatively low cost of adding low-g/high-RPM to a MTV, it's wasteful madness to spend many tens of billions on a Mars mission without even attempting to see if such AG would help.



AG is also possible on Mars.
While true, I think artificial gravity would be significantly more complex to do on a planet with a partial gravity than it would in zero gravity.

This has also been discussed to death previously. Being on the ground under fairly low gravity does add possibilities that aren't available for a space-habitat, because of the essentially unlimited momentum-sink of the planet. (For example, a banking rail ring.) But it assumes a large capacity for development, which assumes a pre-existing established colony/base, which assumes the problems of low-g can't be too bad. In which case, large AG habitats are probably unnecessary, and whatever the problem is (say foetal development) might be solvable with, say, two hours a day on a centrifuge-bike for the first trimester.
Title: Re: Zero gravity and Deep Space Habitat
Post by: lcasv on 06/07/2017 01:52 PM
Who knows what happen with astronaut's health after 500 day in zero gravity ?
No one, just guessing...
Title: Re: Zero gravity and Deep Space Habitat
Post by: whitelancer64 on 06/09/2017 04:46 PM
Who knows what happen with astronaut's health after 500 day in zero gravity ?
No one, just guessing...

No.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_spaceflight_records#Ten_longest_human_space_flights
Title: Re: Zero gravity and Deep Space Habitat
Post by: RonM on 06/09/2017 05:15 PM
Who knows what happen with astronaut's health after 500 day in zero gravity ?
No one, just guessing...

No.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_spaceflight_records#Ten_longest_human_space_flights

All of those are less than 500 days. So the answer is no one has done the research.
Title: Re: Zero gravity and Deep Space Habitat
Post by: TakeOff on 06/09/2017 11:43 PM
Who knows what happen with astronaut's health after 500 day in zero gravity ?
No one, just guessing...

No.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_spaceflight_records#Ten_longest_human_space_flights

All of those are less than 500 days. So the answer is no one has done the research.
True. After 500 days maybe the adaptation is complete and the potential for negative health risks completely disappears. This is impossible to figure out theoretically. It has to be done in order to find out. But it should of course not be done Dr. Mengele style, but for a purpose that makes the risk of discovering the unknown worthwhile. Like spending the time on the Moon or Mars or Mars' moons. Not spending it in a nowhere Gateway.
Title: Re: Zero gravity and Deep Space Habitat
Post by: Paul451 on 06/10/2017 01:00 PM
But it should of course not be done Dr. Mengele style, but for a purpose that makes the risk of discovering the unknown worthwhile. Like spending the time on the Moon or Mars or Mars' moons. Not spending it in a nowhere Gateway.

So a space-station is like Auschwitz?

"Hyperbole. Not just for trajectories."
Title: Re: Zero gravity and Deep Space Habitat
Post by: TakeOff on 06/12/2017 01:21 PM
But it should of course not be done Dr. Mengele style, but for a purpose that makes the risk of discovering the unknown worthwhile. Like spending the time on the Moon or Mars or Mars' moons. Not spending it in a nowhere Gateway.

So a space-station is like Auschwitz?

"Hyperbole. Not just for trajectories."
A space station that "tries out" how long humans can survive in it, really is! That's the profit from torturing people. It is completely different to send a crew out on a dangerous exploration mission that would return great discoveries if it works. The maximum potential loss is the same in both cases. The difference is that one of the cases has a possible upside. The other does not. It is a failure of design, and of humanity, to pick the latter.
Title: Re: Zero gravity and Deep Space Habitat
Post by: whitelancer64 on 06/12/2017 02:20 PM
Who knows what happen with astronaut's health after 500 day in zero gravity ?
No one, just guessing...

No.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_spaceflight_records#Ten_longest_human_space_flights

All of those are less than 500 days. So the answer is no one has done the research.

Those are just single stays. For cumulative time in space, there are currently 19 people over 500 days (soon to be 20 with Peggy Whitson becoming the first woman to reach that mark), the current record holder is Gennady Padalka, who has spent 878 days in space.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_spaceflight_records#Total_time_in_space
Title: Re: Zero gravity and Deep Space Habitat
Post by: TakeOff on 06/12/2017 03:21 PM
Who knows what happen with astronaut's health after 500 day in zero gravity ?
No one, just guessing...

No.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_spaceflight_records#Ten_longest_human_space_flights

All of those are less than 500 days. So the answer is no one has done the research.

Those are just single stays. For cumulative time in space, there are currently 19 people over 500 days (soon to be 20 with Peggy Whitson becoming the first woman to reach that mark), the current record holder is Gennady Padalka, who has spent 878 days in space.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_spaceflight_records#Total_time_in_space
That's a Mars back and forth trip time.
Did that make Gennady Padalka lame, blind and mad? Because that is what the space hypochondriacs claim that he must be.
Title: Re: Zero gravity and Deep Space Habitat
Post by: Space Ghost 1962 on 06/12/2017 03:51 PM
Speaking as someone who has studied such "space hypochondriacs" issues formally, including the research at CERN on human models, and also active studies by SC from Mercury to past Pluto, I can tell you that not a one of them when asked would travel to Mars.
Title: Re: Zero gravity and Deep Space Habitat
Post by: RonM on 06/12/2017 05:45 PM
Who knows what happen with astronaut's health after 500 day in zero gravity ?
No one, just guessing...

No.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_spaceflight_records#Ten_longest_human_space_flights

All of those are less than 500 days. So the answer is no one has done the research.

Those are just single stays. For cumulative time in space, there are currently 19 people over 500 days (soon to be 20 with Peggy Whitson becoming the first woman to reach that mark), the current record holder is Gennady Padalka, who has spent 878 days in space.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_spaceflight_records#Total_time_in_space

I knew someone would bring this up.  ::)

The question about adverse medical effects is continous time in less than Earth gravity. Obviously, cumulative time includes long periods on Earth between missions giving the body a chance to recover.

We only have data for Earth and microgravity with stays of less than 500 days. No data on lunar or Mars gravity.
Title: Re: Zero gravity and Deep Space Habitat
Post by: Aussie_Space_Nut on 06/13/2017 10:23 AM
 Maybe grow an extra head?

http://newatlas.com/two-headed-worm-from-space/49993/

 :P
Title: Re: Zero gravity and Deep Space Habitat
Post by: RDoc on 09/12/2017 06:27 PM
I'm also one who is very doubtful about long term <1.0G human viability, however, I think it should be tested.

To start with, it would seem very useful to try establishing a long term mouse/rat/etc. colony on the ISS. I realize there are serious logistical issues with this, but we really do need to know more about this stuff.

It would be even more useful to have such colonies in a centrifuge so we could see what partial G does.

The notion that we should just go to Mars or the Moon and see what happens with human pregnancy seems like a very bad idea.
Title: Re: Zero gravity and Deep Space Habitat
Post by: Patchouli on 09/13/2017 01:54 AM
I think partial g research is something that needs to be looked into which is one reason I was really hyped about the Nautilus-X concept.
Also why I favor the SLS derived DSH as the larger diameter would allow for a larger centrifuge for exercising in or small animals could be placed in and observed.
Title: Re: Zero gravity and Deep Space Habitat
Post by: dwheeler on 09/13/2017 04:29 AM
I'm also one who is very doubtful about long term <1.0G human viability, however, I think it should be tested.

To start with, it would seem very useful to try establishing a long term mouse/rat/etc. colony on the ISS. I realize there are serious logistical issues with this, but we really do need to know more about this stuff.

It would be even more useful to have such colonies in a centrifuge so we could see what partial G does.

The notion that we should just go to Mars or the Moon and see what happens with human pregnancy seems like a very bad idea.

The ISS has such a facility already... the JAXA Mouse Habitat Unit or MHU. (http://spaceflight101.com/iss/mouse-habitat-experiment/ (http://spaceflight101.com/iss/mouse-habitat-experiment/)). I believe it was installed in 2015 but I don't think the first mice arrived until CRS-12 just last month.

https://spaceflightnow.com/2017/08/16/station-crew-captures-dragon-supply-ship-gets-early-start-on-unpacking/ (https://spaceflightnow.com/2017/08/16/station-crew-captures-dragon-supply-ship-gets-early-start-on-unpacking/)

Quote
Twenty mice riding inside Dragon will be examined after their return to the ground to aid researchers studying how spaceflight affects vision and movement.

Quote
The mice will come back to Earth inside the Dragon capsule alive, and SpaceX will hand over their transporters to scientists upon return to port in Southern California.

From what I could tell in that article the centrifuge capability of the MHU wasn't needed for these particular experiments.

But anyways... a very small step in the right direction. Hopefully they have some experiments lined up that will use the centrifuge soon.
Title: Re: Zero gravity and Deep Space Habitat
Post by: tdperk on 09/14/2017 03:01 PM
I'm curious what you think the threshold is then? We have strong evidence that long term zero-gravity exposure is harmful long-term in spite of regular exercise, and three centuries of biology research will tell you these effects always exist on a sliding scale.

Actually it will show that for many things there is a threshold below which there are no discernible consequences.
Title: Re: Zero gravity and Deep Space Habitat
Post by: whitelancer64 on 09/14/2017 03:39 PM
I'm also one who is very doubtful about long term <1.0G human viability, however, I think it should be tested.

To start with, it would seem very useful to try establishing a long term mouse/rat/etc. colony on the ISS. I realize there are serious logistical issues with this, but we really do need to know more about this stuff.

It would be even more useful to have such colonies in a centrifuge so we could see what partial G does.

The notion that we should just go to Mars or the Moon and see what happens with human pregnancy seems like a very bad idea.

The ISS has such a facility already... the JAXA Mouse Habitat Unit or MHU. (http://spaceflight101.com/iss/mouse-habitat-experiment/ (http://spaceflight101.com/iss/mouse-habitat-experiment/)). I believe it was installed in 2015 but I don't think the first mice arrived until CRS-12 just last month.

https://spaceflightnow.com/2017/08/16/station-crew-captures-dragon-supply-ship-gets-early-start-on-unpacking/ (https://spaceflightnow.com/2017/08/16/station-crew-captures-dragon-supply-ship-gets-early-start-on-unpacking/)

Quote
Twenty mice riding inside Dragon will be examined after their return to the ground to aid researchers studying how spaceflight affects vision and movement.

Quote
The mice will come back to Earth inside the Dragon capsule alive, and SpaceX will hand over their transporters to scientists upon return to port in Southern California.

From what I could tell in that article the centrifuge capability of the MHU wasn't needed for these particular experiments.

But anyways... a very small step in the right direction. Hopefully they have some experiments lined up that will use the centrifuge soon.

I think the first mice to live in JAXA's MHU were delivered on CRS-9 last year. IIRC CRS-4 was the first SpaceX delivery of mice to the ISS but I don't think they were in the MHU.
Title: Re: Zero gravity and Deep Space Habitat
Post by: RDoc on 10/22/2017 06:07 AM
My understanding is that 12 young mice were kept in the MHU for 35 days to develop, 6 in the 1G centrifuge, the other 6 in microgravity. I've not found a complete report about the results, but it seems that the ones in microgravity had substantially poorer muscle development. All were returned alive and are being studied.

IMHO this is extremely important research, but doesn't cover the issue of reproduction in < 1G. The MHU only has individual cages, not what's needed for doing a multi-generational study.
Title: Re: Zero gravity and Deep Space Habitat
Post by: Coastal Ron on 10/23/2017 05:29 AM
Also why I favor the SLS derived DSH as the larger diameter would allow for a larger centrifuge for exercising in or small animals could be placed in and observed.

If the SLS lifted a 8m diameter DSH I'm not sure that would be a large enough diameter to demonstrate any benefits of spin gravity.

For instance, assuming a person laid down along the inside of the outer wall (i.e. 4m from the center of rotation for a 8m diameter vessel) it would take about 5 RPM to create just 0.1 gravity. We obviously lack hard data on what can be tolerated, but I think an 8m diameter vessel is far too small to do micro-gravity testing.

Besides, at this point artificial gravity doesn't seem to be a goal for the DSG, especially since the notional missions all seem to be short duration ones, meaning zero G won't be a big problem for missions to our Moon.
Title: Re: Zero gravity and Deep Space Habitat
Post by: A_M_Swallow on 10/28/2017 10:13 AM
Also why I favor the SLS derived DSH as the larger diameter would allow for a larger centrifuge for exercising in or small animals could be placed in and observed.

If the SLS lifted a 8m diameter DSH I'm not sure that would be a large enough diameter to demonstrate any benefits of spin gravity.

For instance, assuming a person laid down along the inside of the outer wall (i.e. 4m from the center of rotation for a 8m diameter vessel) it would take about 5 RPM to create just 0.1 gravity. We obviously lack hard data on what can be tolerated, but I think an 8m diameter vessel is far too small to do micro-gravity testing.

Besides, at this point artificial gravity doesn't seem to be a goal for the DSG, especially since the notional missions all seem to be short duration ones, meaning zero G won't be a big problem for missions to our Moon.

People are about 2 m tall so splitting the DSH down the middle into two 4m high modules should work. Expand a truss to separate the two modules. NASA has developed trusses that expand.
Title: Re: Zero gravity and Deep Space Habitat
Post by: Paul451 on 10/28/2017 02:46 PM
The BFS's payload pay is longer than it is wide. 8m isn't your longest available dimension.
Title: Re: Zero gravity and Deep Space Habitat
Post by: Coastal Ron on 10/28/2017 03:27 PM
Besides, at this point artificial gravity doesn't seem to be a goal for the DSG, especially since the notional missions all seem to be short duration ones, meaning zero G won't be a big problem for missions to our Moon.

People are about 2 m tall so splitting the DSH down the middle into two 4m high modules should work. Expand a truss to separate the two modules. NASA has developed trusses that expand.

I'm not able to imagine what you're suggesting, but keep in mind that once you start rotating things the stresses change, and getting in or out of the rotating structure starts becoming a challenge.

Again though, artificial gravity has not been talked about for the DSH, so this is not the right thread to pursue this.
Title: Re: Zero gravity and Deep Space Habitat
Post by: Russel on 01/10/2018 04:31 AM
I think its necessary to draw a distinction between different levels of spin gravity and the desirable outcomes at each level.

Firstly as a matter of practicality it is good to have a minimum level. Enough so that liquids will settle and anything let go of will fall rather than float. This solves a range of practical and engineering issues. Not that you can avoid designing for zero g entirely but you can enjoy 'normal' life more. Showering, sleeping, eating etc. As well as the technical payoff, I think the benefits of having a sense of up and down haven't really been discussed much here. Those include the psycholgical and cognitive benefits. In short a spacecraft with a sense of up and down is more orderly and less stressful and people are less likely to be sick or suffer psycholigical issues.

How much is enough? Perhaps 0.1g. Perhaps less. The point here is its not a big ask to implement.

Then there is arguably a range of gravity that has a physiological impact. Forgetting about musculo-skeletal issues. We're talking about biological issues. Proper functioning of organs. Proper growth of tissue. Having liquids and gasses behave properly in the body.

We don't know. My guess is that a modest level of spin gravity will make a big difference here. (And if it doesn't then we have serious issues with long term exposure to Mars gravity). So what are we talking about? 0.2g? 0.4g?

Then there is musculo-skeletal issues. Clearly we are evolved for 1g and we will lose muscle and bone if not constantly stressed (physically). Again we don't know. We don't have the data on moderate lwvels of gravity.

I would argue though that we can simulate these loads. And something no one here has picked up on is that in a space ship with modest spin gravity its a lot easier to do this. You don't need to be strapped into place with rubber bands. All you do is wear enough mass. Now you've got 1g equivalent loads but you have mobility. You can move around and actually do usefull stuff. Even if you prefer a VR environment this will help a lot and feel more believable/natural. The typical human would need about 110Kg of wearable mass in a 0.4g environment to simulate 1g. The other nice thing is your wearable mass could double as personal radiation protection (especially around vital organs).

So my gut feeling (given the lack of comprehensive data) is for at least 0.2g of spin g and possibly as much as 0.4g (call it 0.38 or Mars g).

Next you do not need this the whole trip. You can de-spin, reconfigure etc to suit the mission. There's no need for any moving parts. Possibly dockable parts.

Since I've argued for a modest level of spin g it also follows that you do not need long structures. A structure that is 40m long rotated st 4.2rpm will deliver Mars equivalent g.

I'll also point out that a space habitat made of two identical units linked by a boom (transfer tube) has side benefits like redundancy and survivability in a crisis.

Back to the argument about zero-g followed by high g landing on Mars. I still don't think this a good idea. Its all very well and good to quote trained cosmonauts. Its another dealing with civilians with varying degrees of fitness and underlying medical issues and adherence to exerecise regimes.. Even if you provide a modest 0.4g on the way I'm still no fan of hitting them with 4-6 gs on landing. Its one thing when you have the resources of Earth and a trained ground crew. Its another when you have no ground crew, you're in a hostile  near vacuum environment, time is of the essence, you're weakened by the g forces and you're having to stretcher fellow passengers who are even worse off than you are.
Title: Re: Zero gravity and Deep Space Habitat
Post by: Russel on 01/10/2018 10:23 AM
Thanks. I'll look into that.
Title: Re: Zero gravity and Deep Space Habitat
Post by: Katana on 01/13/2018 05:02 PM
Test it with mice in centrifuge at 0.4G, in ISS?
Title: Re: Zero gravity and Deep Space Habitat
Post by: Russel on 01/26/2018 02:49 AM
Testing on humans would deliver better quality science.

Maybe we could tether a couple of Dragon/Orions and put a couple of crew in them for 1-2-3 month missions. Stick the whole thing a few Km awsy from the ISS as a backup.

Even better, rigidly connect the capsules with a tube so they can paractice moving back and forth while spinning.
Title: Re: Zero gravity and Deep Space Habitat
Post by: Jim on 01/29/2018 04:20 PM

Maybe we could tether a couple of Dragon/Orions and put a couple of crew in them for 1-2-3 month missions.

They can only last a few weeks
Title: Re: Zero gravity and Deep Space Habitat
Post by: Jim on 01/29/2018 04:24 PM

I would argue though that we can simulate these loads. And something no one here has picked up on is that in a space ship with modest spin gravity its a lot easier to do this. You don't need to be strapped into place with rubber bands. All you do is wear enough mass. Now you've got 1g equivalent loads but you have mobility.


That is so wrong.  That does nothing for internal organs, brain, and the vestibular system.  And it doesn't over the whole muscular skeleton system.
Title: Re: Zero gravity and Deep Space Habitat
Post by: Hog on 01/29/2018 04:24 PM
Test it with mice in centrifuge at 0.4G, in ISS?
There was an ISS component for producing centrifugal gravity on ISS, but the ISS is a micro gravity research lab.

Pic  The Centrifuge Accommodations Module (CAM).  The partially constructed module is on display at the Tsukuba Space Center in Japan.
Title: Re: Zero gravity and Deep Space Habitat
Post by: Jim on 01/29/2018 04:25 PM
In short a spacecraft with a sense of up and down is more orderly and less stressful and people are less likely to be sick or suffer psycholigical issues.


What data are you basing this on?
Title: Re: Zero gravity and Deep Space Habitat
Post by: Jim on 01/29/2018 04:27 PM

Since I've argued for a modest level of spin g it also follows that you do not need long structures. A structure that is 40m long rotated st 4.2rpm will deliver Mars equivalent g.


Based on what data?  Also, why do you ignore the coriolis affect?
Title: Re: Zero gravity and Deep Space Habitat
Post by: BrightLight on 01/30/2018 03:55 PM
A FISO report from Boeing on Artificial Gravity (AG)
http://fiso.spiritastro.net/archivelist.htm
"Artificial Gravity for Low Earth Orbit (ISS) & Deep Space Exploration"  •
James Engle , Boeing & Torin Clark , University of Colorado   

Motivation and Approach

•Artificial gravity (AG) could provide a comprehensive countermeasure for astronaut physiological deconditioning during long-duration space exploration missions
•Long-radius AG systems historically too complex, costly, lacked technological feasibility
•Shorter-radius design potentially more technologically feasible and reduces cost but introduces limitations including:
   1.Vestibular cross-coupled (CC) illusion (i.e., Coriolis Illusion)
   * thought to be the biggest limitation of the three
   2.Coriolis forces
   3.Gravity gradient
•Investigations at University of Colorado Boulder (CU) aim to “train” subjects to adapt to the CC illusion at higher spin rates thus allowing for a shorter-radius centrifuge design
•Boeing spacecraft and habitat design and architecture leverage benefits of short radius to develop potentially feasible configurations

Three proposed experiments

1.Personalized adaptation protocol–training protocol in which spin rate is individually modulated based on subject response to head tilts at each spin rate
2.Non-personalized adaptation protocol –each subject completes the same training protocol, which is based on median values of the personalized protocol for the first 9 days, then the 10thday is a ‘personalized’ protocol for direct comparison of thresholds
3.Retention study –subjects return for three days of testing 30 days after the completion of their original incremental adaptation training to determine how much of the adaptation was preserved

Summary
•AG is currently in the Global Exploration Roadmap
•Not integrated in to Industry and NASA’s Cis-lunar exploration architecture.
•AG offers the potential to address key Human Health and Performance needs for long-duration deep-space exploration.
•There are potentially feasible configurations that can fit into the current exploration planning
•Boeing has developed a number of enabling technologies to make this happen, including 9 AG patent pending concepts.
•Working closely with University of Colorado to support physiological needs and testing
•Currently performing ground-based studies to further inform our AG centrifuge system designs.
•Human space centrifuge in LEO, near the ISS, would allow for:
   - Fundamental scientific and validation experiments,
   - Demonstrate necessary technologies

Boeing is proposing a "Lab Module" for the ISS to evaluate AG technology - it will be interesting to see how they propose to isolate the vibration of the system, especially when they stop the centrifuge.
Title: Re: Zero gravity and Deep Space Habitat
Post by: Russel on 01/31/2018 02:11 AM

I would argue though that we can simulate these loads. And something no one here has picked up on is that in a space ship with modest spin gravity its a lot easier to do this. You don't need to be strapped into place with rubber bands. All you do is wear enough mass. Now you've got 1g equivalent loads but you have mobility.


That is so wrong.  That does nothing for internal organs, brain, and the vestibular system.  And it doesn't over the whole muscular skeleton system.

I think you missed the point that you're starting with (notionally) 0.4g.

The added mass is for the benefit of skeletal muscles. The basic gravity is for the other systems.
Title: Re: Zero gravity and Deep Space Habitat
Post by: Russel on 01/31/2018 02:16 AM
The point about 0.4g is that whilst you could achieve higher whilst in transit, you're stuck with Mars g for much longer. In other words long periods of ~0.4g is a problem you just have to deal with. And if that's the case, why aim for 1g (or 0.8g or 1.2g - its a little arbitrary) whilst in transit?
Title: Re: Zero gravity and Deep Space Habitat
Post by: MATTBLAK on 01/31/2018 02:41 AM
That notional radius for rotation looks like a recipe for motion sickness/Coriolis to me :(
Title: Re: Zero gravity and Deep Space Habitat
Post by: QuantumG on 01/31/2018 02:51 AM
Globus and Hall (http://www.nss.org/settlement/space/GlobusRotationPaper.pdf) write that rotations up to 10 rpm may be acceptable with training.

If you only want Mars gravity for transit, 8.2 rpm would be fine.

Title: Re: Zero gravity and Deep Space Habitat
Post by: MATTBLAK on 01/31/2018 02:55 AM
Globus and Hall (http://www.nss.org/settlement/space/GlobusRotationPaper.pdf) write that rotations up to 10 rpm may be acceptable with training.

If you only want Mars gravity for transit, 8.2 rpm would be fine.


Nonetheless; they should strive to make any rotating artificial-grav structure large as practically possible, be it for testing or operational.
Title: Re: Zero gravity and Deep Space Habitat
Post by: Russel on 01/31/2018 10:50 AM
I've already pointed out that there is an easy way to achieve a good radius.

Build your habitat out of 3 pieces. Two identical modules docked to the ends of a transfer tube.
Title: Re: Zero gravity and Deep Space Habitat
Post by: Lampyridae on 01/31/2018 11:54 AM
Globus and Hall (http://www.nss.org/settlement/space/GlobusRotationPaper.pdf) write that rotations up to 10 rpm may be acceptable with training.

If you only want Mars gravity for transit, 8.2 rpm would be fine.



In the Engle, Simon & Clark presentation above, they were able to crank the rpm tolerance up to 17RPM for the most queasy subjective after training, and they still retained their adaptation after 30 days.
Title: Re: Zero gravity and Deep Space Habitat
Post by: Paul451 on 01/31/2018 02:24 PM
Nonetheless; they should strive to make any rotating artificial-grav structure large as practically possible

Why do you assume the FISO/Boeing concept isn't "as large as practically possible"? Given that "practical" and "possible" include things like cost, launch vehicles, likelihood of getting approval, logistics of mating with the larger station/vehicle, etc.
Title: Re: Zero gravity and Deep Space Habitat
Post by: QuantumG on 01/31/2018 08:54 PM
In the Engle, Simon & Clark presentation above, they were able to crank the rpm tolerance up to 17RPM for the most queasy subjective after training, and they still retained their adaptation after 30 days.

Yeah, it's amazing how wrong we appear to have been on rpm tolerance. It's almost like we should being doing experiments in space to find the true limits.

Title: Re: Zero gravity and Deep Space Habitat
Post by: Russel on 02/01/2018 12:34 AM
Nonetheless; they should strive to make any rotating artificial-grav structure large as practically possible

Why do you assume the FISO/Boeing concept isn't "as large as practically possible"? Given that "practical" and "possible" include things like cost, launch vehicles, likelihood of getting approval, logistics of mating with the larger station/vehicle, etc.


It may be "as large as practically possible" if you assume it must be launched in one piece. I'll simply repeat that is a questionable assumption.
Title: Re: Zero gravity and Deep Space Habitat
Post by: Paul451 on 02/01/2018 04:56 PM
Nonetheless; they should strive to make any rotating artificial-grav structure large as practically possible
Why do you assume the FISO/Boeing concept isn't "as large as practically possible"? Given that "practical" and "possible" include things like cost, launch vehicles, likelihood of getting approval, logistics of mating with the larger station/vehicle, etc.
It may be "as large as practically possible" if you assume it must be launched in one piece.

(I might have misread the presentation, but I thought it was launched in two pieces, the rotator/hub and the mushroom, both designed to fit separately into a Dragon trunk.)

But I repeat, there are other issues, including reasonable funding expectation (which includes the biases of funders), the object you are mating the test system to (ISS - which includes all of the parties you have to get to agree to it), and I'll add commonality between the largest "practical" test system and a subsequent working system.

Just because you can imagine a giant assembled AG space-station doesn't mean it's "practical" or "possible", given those other constraints.

I mean, I have suggested variants of, say, a BA-330 that remains attached to its upper-stage as counterweight, flying separately from ISS, spinning as a baton/tumbling-pigeon. Or Hab, docking-node, ECLSS/power/utility module, launched separately. But just because I can picture it, doesn't mean that anyone would be interested in funding it.
Title: Re: Zero gravity and Deep Space Habitat
Post by: Russel on 02/02/2018 01:01 AM
I don't really want to go into thr politics of this. Suffice to say I'm not from the US and I hope good engineering wins over US political/commercial machinations.

What I think makes sense is the following.  Start with a basic module. Call it a hab for want of a better term. Send 2 of these into orbit. Now construct a link module which at its most basic is a tube with docking ports on either end. Send that into orbit and perform standard focking.

Hab <dock> Link <dock> Hab

Now you have a structure that can be rotated around its point of symmetry - the center of the link module.

15m from the center of rotation at 5rpm delivers 0.4g. 20m and 7rpm felivers 1g.

Not only is this simple and practical but it delivers other benefits. Firstly is scaling. For a given width constraint you get twice the hab volume. Or put another way, each hab can be smaller than the required single unit hab.

Secondly you've added redundancy with basic power and life support replicated. In an emergency, the crew can transfer into one hab (cramped) and there are many scenarios where not having this redundancy means loss of crew.

The link module can be as simple or as complex as you like. It can host additional fuel or propulsion systems for instance. It can also host comms equipment.

It surprises me that this configuration is being overlooked.
Title: Re: Zero gravity and Deep Space Habitat
Post by: Paul451 on 02/02/2018 04:25 AM
Hab <dock> Link <dock> Hab

Usually the "link" is called a "node", or "docking node".

It can host additional fuel or propulsion systems for instance.

At least it could host the power system. With the solar arrays "hanging" in the rotational plane.

It surprises me that this configuration is being overlooked.

I don't think it's been overlooked. Look up the various spin-gravity threads, usually in the Advanced Concepts section. People have played with seemingly every possible configuration. This one is a pretty basic option, usually called a "dumbbell". I scratched one out ages ago (see below), when I needed to explain what I meant about the arrays "hanging" in the rotational plane. (People always seem to forget about power/etc with a rotating station.)

We've also previously discussed issues with this layout. For example, if you have an unbalanced mass (such as a capsule) docked on the rotational axis, it will destabilise the system, causing it to periodically flip the rotational plane 180° every so often.
Title: Re: Zero gravity and Deep Space Habitat
Post by: Hotblack Desiato on 02/02/2018 01:14 PM
How about emulating gravity instead of simulating gravity by spin.

The spaceship/DSH/ITS/whatever is built with floors, as if there was gravity and all persons wear powered exoskeletons which emulate the gravity.

So, the wearers will feel a constant force more or less as if they move at 1g. Of course, the heart will not be forced to pump against gravity, and stuff will still be weightless (but that can be solved via other means). The boots will need some sort of electromagnetism, cleverly switched on and off to emulate that they are sticking on the floor.

These exoskeletons will have a second purpose: on Mars, they will serve as regular exoskeletons assisting for heavy lifting (even at 0.38g, there will be really heavy stuff on Mars).

I got that idea from a german magazine called "Bild der Wissenschaft" where they did an article about a young guy named Samuel Koch, who had a tragic accident in a german TV show named "Wetten dass..." which rendered him tetraplegic. He is now testing powered exoskeletons which give him back the ability to walk, and prevent his muscles from atrophying away.

https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samuel_Koch (in german)

This can also be augmented with VR-googles, making people believe that they are somewhere else, or doing sports, etc.

And it would be interesting for Moon or Ceres, where the regular gravity might be too low (maybe even the martian gravity is too low for us)

something very similar:

https://www.extremetech.com/extreme/241613-walking-hyundais-exoskeleton-helps-paraplegics-move
Title: Re: Zero gravity and Deep Space Habitat
Post by: Aussie_Space_Nut on 02/02/2018 10:52 PM
Something prepared earlier for another thread.

Spinforce Calculator is here,
http://www.calctool.org/CALC/phys/newtonian/centrifugal
Title: Re: Zero gravity and Deep Space Habitat
Post by: Paul451 on 02/02/2018 11:06 PM
Something prepared earlier for another thread. [...]

Why limit it to 3rpm? At just 4rpm you can cut the diameter in half.
Title: Re: Zero gravity and Deep Space Habitat
Post by: Aussie_Space_Nut on 02/02/2018 11:11 PM
Agreed.

My point was that in a single launch you could have a rigid "tube" 100m long. It's doable. Anything shorter is also doable of course.
Title: Re: Zero gravity and Deep Space Habitat
Post by: Aussie_Space_Nut on 02/02/2018 11:24 PM
Another option for a large habitat such as a Bigelow Olympus is a spin gravity section located within.

PERHAPS if an astronaut is able to sleep in 1g then all the 0g issues will disappear. (OK. Thats a huge assumption.)

According to Wikipedia,
The Bigelow Olympus is 12.6m Diameter.
So if we build a spin gravity structure within at say 10m Diameter, 5m Radius then spin it up to 13 RPM we get 1g.

We know some humans can handle that, thinking of motorcycle riders inside the wall of death attractions.

However it is not ideal.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BA_2100

Title: Re: Zero gravity and Deep Space Habitat
Post by: Jim on 02/02/2018 11:37 PM
Not really, handle and live in ate two different things
Title: Re: Zero gravity and Deep Space Habitat
Post by: Aussie_Space_Nut on 02/03/2018 12:07 AM
Agreed Jim. It's a huge assumption to think that astronauts can sleep in a 13RPM 1g environment.
Title: Re: Zero gravity and Deep Space Habitat
Post by: Paul451 on 02/03/2018 12:57 AM
PERHAPS if an astronaut is able to sleep in 1g then all the 0g issues will disappear.

Backwards. We use bedrest to simulate zero-g health effects on Earth. Sleeping under gravity does nothing to reverse or prevent zero-g issues.

You want to do standing/moving work and exercise under gravity, then have sleep and sitting/lounging activities in low/zero gravity.
Title: Re: Zero gravity and Deep Space Habitat
Post by: Aussie_Space_Nut on 02/03/2018 01:33 AM
Ha! That blows my point right out of the water then! :-)

Ahhhhh well.
Title: Re: Zero gravity and Deep Space Habitat
Post by: Russel on 02/04/2018 01:57 AM
Hab <dock> Link <dock> Hab

Usually the "link" is called a "node", or "docking node".

It can host additional fuel or propulsion systems for instance.

At least it could host the power system. With the solar arrays "hanging" in the rotational plane.

It surprises me that this configuration is being overlooked.

I don't think it's been overlooked. Look up the various spin-gravity threads, usually in the Advanced Concepts section. People have played with seemingly every possible configuration. This one is a pretty basic option, usually called a "dumbbell". I scratched one out ages ago (see below), when I needed to explain what I meant about the arrays "hanging" in the rotational plane. (People always seem to forget about power/etc with a rotating station.)

We've also previously discussed issues with this layout. For example, if you have an unbalanced mass (such as a capsule) docked on the rotational axis, it will destabilise the system, causing it to periodically flip the rotational plane 180° every so often.

My access to Advanced Concepts is read only so I haven't given it much of a look.

I don't mind calling it a Node but I prefer 'module' to emphasise the on-orbit docking process.

It certainly would host solar arrays. However the hab modules need a 'degraded mode' backup power and energy storage system on their own.

The intention is to only break symmetry (by docking) whilst not spinning.

I don't know of any proposed mission that incorporates spin gravity other than the original 'spin around a spent booster using cables' idea. The thing that really attracts me to the "dumbell" configuration is identical modules which gives payoffs in terms of development costs and tobustness/safety.
Title: Re: Zero gravity and Deep Space Habitat
Post by: Russel on 02/04/2018 03:59 AM
PERHAPS if an astronaut is able to sleep in 1g then all the 0g issues will disappear.

Backwards. We use bedrest to simulate zero-g health effects on Earth. Sleeping under gravity does nothing to reverse or prevent zero-g issues.

You want to do standing/moving work and exercise under gravity, then have sleep and sitting/lounging activities in low/zero gravity.

I tend to agree with this. You spend the majority of your time not sleeping.If a vehicle provided 0.4g in working quarters and 0.2 g in sleeping quarters I'd be happy.

Title: Re: Zero gravity and Deep Space Habitat
Post by: Aussie_Space_Nut on 03/04/2018 01:05 AM
Globus and Hall (http://www.nss.org/settlement/space/GlobusRotationPaper.pdf) write that rotations up to 10 rpm may be acceptable with training.

If you only want Mars gravity for transit, 8.2 rpm would be fine.

This paper is a very good read, thank you QuantumG :-)
Title: Re: Zero gravity and Deep Space Habitat
Post by: Yamaur on 09/20/2018 01:34 PM
No recliner here on earth can or ever will be "zero gravity". My main thought is that a recliner that moves up and down with the weight of you and shifting body position will simply introduce a lot of wobble to your views as it adjusts to your movement.
I've recently purchased a riser recliner for my husband as he was starting to show occasional signs of struggling to get out of his usual armchair. I just wanted to make sure that something was in place to help me get him out of his chair if necessary.

He doesn't tend to nap during the daytime yet, unless he is ill, but again I thought it worth going for the recliner option so that it isn't a problem in future should he start to struggle getting up to bed.

They aren't cheap https://10restbest.com/best-zero-gravity-chair ( :eek: )but we put his PIP money aside to save up for it - I'm also justifying the cost by telling myself it might be something I can use for myself in future, as they are easy enough to get re-covered.

I steered away from leather for several reasons - the ones I saw were nearly all in black or brown which are colours my husband struggles to 'see', so not ideal trying to get him to sit on something he thinks might be a black hole! I think they probably do beige/cream ones too but I remember a cream leather sofa my brother used to have and it looked quite grubby and worn fairly early on. His wife also used to complain that she found it hot and sticky, particularly in warm weather.

Also I don't know what effect urine would have on leather or the effect of cleaning products to try and remove the smell of urine from leather (my husband isn't incontinent but I know it is a possibility in future).


Title: Re: Zero gravity and Deep Space Habitat
Post by: QuantumG on 09/21/2018 01:47 AM
No recliner here on earth can or ever will be "zero gravity".

There's ways you can do zero-g with magnetic fields - they do it for medical research, but it'll probably never be human-scale. Neutral buoyancy is good enough for most practical uses (training etc). Considering the effect on your bones, just extended bed rest is enough to get the same effect as zero-g.

BTW - welcome to the forum!
Title: Re: Zero gravity and Deep Space Habitat
Post by: DaveJes1979 on 12/03/2018 06:40 PM
5 pages of people trying to re-invent the wheel.  As many in the past have pointed out - rotate a pressurized habitat linked to an empty upper stage via a few hundred feet of tethering.  Quite large radii of rotation are possible with tethers.
Title: Re: Zero gravity and Deep Space Habitat
Post by: Slarty1080 on 12/06/2018 04:37 PM
5 pages of people trying to re-invent the wheel.  As many in the past have pointed out - rotate a pressurized habitat linked to an empty upper stage via a few hundred feet of tethering.  Quite large radii of rotation are possible with tethers.

Yes I agree. For those who want to have a backup habitat module in case there is a problem, just have two side by side with an airlock between them on the same side of the spin arm and extend the cable with the counter weight a little further out and/or adjust the centre of spin on the cable.

For concerns about people, liquids and things moving about and disturbing the rotational balance, I would have thought that many such movements would cancel themselves out eventually and that the residual imbalances could be dealt with by an automated system monitoring the rotational forces in 3 dimensions and adjusting counter weights inside or outside of the craft and or increasing / decreasing the rate of spin.
Title: Re: Zero gravity and Deep Space Habitat
Post by: A_M_Swallow on 12/06/2018 08:07 PM
5 pages of people trying to re-invent the wheel.  As many in the past have pointed out - rotate a pressurized habitat linked to an empty upper stage via a few hundred feet of tethering.  Quite large radii of rotation are possible with tethers.

Yes I agree. For those who want to have a backup habitat module in case there is a problem, just have two side by side with an airlock between them on the same side of the spin arm and extend the cable with the counter weight a little further out and/or adjust the centre of spin on the cable.

For concerns about people, liquids and things moving about and disturbing the rotational balance, I would have thought that many such movements would cancel themselves out eventually and that the residual imbalances could be dealt with by an automated system monitoring the rotational forces in 3 dimensions and adjusting counter weights inside or outside of the craft and or increasing / decreasing the rate of spin.


If you are using tethers the length of the tether can also be adjusted.
Title: Re: Zero gravity and Deep Space Habitat
Post by: DaveJes1979 on 12/10/2018 05:48 PM
Yes I agree. For those who want to have a backup habitat module in case there is a problem, just have two side by side with an airlock between them on the same side of the spin arm and extend the cable with the counter weight a little further out and/or adjust the centre of spin on the cable.

The Dragon or Starliner capsule that brought you to the habitat is the backup.  Just like with ISS, you get into it and return to earth in the event of an emergency.  There will have to be a specialized docking adapter and structural provisions to connect the capsule to the habitat.

Quote
For concerns about people, liquids and things moving about and disturbing the rotational balance, I would have thought that many such movements would cancel themselves out eventually and that the residual imbalances could be dealt with by an automated system monitoring the rotational forces in 3 dimensions and adjusting counter weights inside or outside of the craft and or increasing / decreasing the rate of spin.

You already have to have an RCS to spin up the stack in the first place.  No need to add more mass and complexity.
Title: Re: Zero gravity and Deep Space Habitat
Post by: Slarty1080 on 12/10/2018 11:02 PM
Yes I agree. For those who want to have a backup habitat module in case there is a problem, just have two side by side with an airlock between them on the same side of the spin arm and extend the cable with the counter weight a little further out and/or adjust the centre of spin on the cable.

The Dragon or Starliner capsule that brought you to the habitat is the backup.  Just like with ISS, you get into it and return to earth in the event of an emergency.  There will have to be a specialized docking adapter and structural provisions to connect the capsule to the habitat.

Quote
For concerns about people, liquids and things moving about and disturbing the rotational balance, I would have thought that many such movements would cancel themselves out eventually and that the residual imbalances could be dealt with by an automated system monitoring the rotational forces in 3 dimensions and adjusting counter weights inside or outside of the craft and or increasing / decreasing the rate of spin.

You already have to have an RCS to spin up the stack in the first place.  No need to add more mass and complexity.
Sure. But the point I was making was that a spinning platform need not be destabilised if people and things move about inside it.
Title: Re: Zero gravity and Deep Space Habitat
Post by: Paul451 on 12/11/2018 07:40 AM
5 pages of people trying to re-invent the wheel.  As many in the past have pointed out - rotate a pressurized habitat linked to an empty upper stage via a few hundred feet of tethering.  Quite large radii of rotation are possible with tethers.

But why is that necessary for such a small habitat, with a trained crew?

People can apparently adapt to ridiculously high spin rates, and the length of a reasonable 3-person habitat plus a docking/power/etc adaptor plus an empty upper-stage is sufficient for modest spin rates at modest gravities.
Title: Re: Zero gravity and Deep Space Habitat
Post by: DaveJes1979 on 12/12/2018 07:18 PM
But why is that necessary for such a small habitat, with a trained crew?

Tethers are light. Why push the limits of human tolerance for coriolis when the whole point is to create an environment that is conducive to human health and comfort?  Also, who says you will have a trained crew (rather than untrained passengers on the way to Mars)?

Human body tolerance is not the only issue.  All systems with fluids will have issues.  And people will want to cook and serve food and take showers.
Title: Re: Zero gravity and Deep Space Habitat
Post by: Paul451 on 12/13/2018 08:07 AM
But why is that necessary for such a small habitat, with a trained crew?
Tethers are light.

But unstable and historically error-prone. (The best "tether" option seems to be to combine it with a pressurised tube to put the tethers/cables under tension, tethers to put the pressure-tube under compression. Increases the vibrational and twisting stability over either alone.)

Also, who says you will have a trained crew (rather than untrained passengers on the way to Mars)?

The topic of the thread, DSH.