|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
artificial gravity a different idea...maybe?
"Jochem Huhmann" wrote:
"Christopher M. Jones" writes: We don't know. All we know is that they don't happen at 1 g and they do happen in micro-g. What happens in the range in between is just speculation. As far as I know this is not a direct consequence of zero-g (or micro-g) but a consequence of missing that load on bones and muscles our body is evolutionary optimized for. One could imagine that a person living in micro-g but doing really hard work with frequent heavy loads on bones and muscles would do quite well. And the other way round, people in 1g just laying in bed for months *do* suffer loss of bone and muscle density quite similar to those in zero-g. Yes, it is all about the absence of load on bones and muscles, and that causes atrophy in both. The real problem is that excercise does not seem to be able to completely counteract these effects. Astronauts who have been in orbit for the better part of a year or longer than a year usually spend a lot of time excercising (many hours per day). I don't know all the specifics but I believe that while excercise does help, even exercising a lot nearly every waking hour does not completely counteract the effects. Also, I believe that the bone and muscle loss in zero-g is quite a bit faster than for bed ridden individuals. Compared to zero-g, ordinary movement in 1 g is like continuous, low impact excercise. Every time you lift your arm up you're using your muscles and bones to lift the weight of your arm against gravity, and that's a lot more excercise than pushing around the mass of your arm in zero-g. |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
artificial gravity a different idea...maybe?
Lex Spoon wrote:
(Zoltan Szakaly) writes: You would just need permenant magnets embedded in the boots. The real reason for artificial gravity is that there are serious health consequences to living in a zero-gee environment for any length of time. Plus, it helps keep your stuff sorted. Karl Hallowell The health consequences could be avoided by putting a load on the body, for example using bunge cords to pull the shoulders to the feet. Are you sure about this? Have there been any studies on these lines? I could certainly see this helping with skeletal issues, but is the skeleton the only thing that dislikes long-term zero-gee ? Lex I seem to recall seeing an article where a test animal subjected to rapid vibration (!) reported had less bone density loss than normal 0g effects... Cheers, Richard |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
artificial gravity a different idea...maybe?
"Gordon D. Pusch" wrote:
... the "cylindrical surface" needs to be about a =MILE= in diameter to get the rotation rate down below 1 rpm @ 1 gee, since if it rotates faster than 1 rpm, the majority of human beings tested upchuck. (Even at 1rpm, a significant fraction of the people tested upchuck; you need to get the rotation rate down to about 0.25 rpm in order for the general population to not upchuck.) Umm, no, it's not =THAT= bad. Many studies put the upper range of "comfort" at 3 or 4 rpm. Some put it as high as 6 rpm. The most useful summary I've found -- one of the few that discusses "comfort" as something other than an on/off switch -- is from Ashton Graybiel, based on extensive research in ground-based centrifuges and rotating rooms: "In brief, at 1.0 rpm even highly susceptible subjects were symptom-free, or nearly so. At 3.0 rpm subjects experienced symptoms but were not significantly handicapped. At 5.4 rpm, only subjects with low susceptibility performed well and by the second day were almost free from symptoms. At 10 rpm, however, adaptation presented a challenging but interesting problem. Even pilots without a history of air sickness did not fully adapt in a period of twelve days. Graybiel, Ashton (1977). "Some Physiological Effects of Alternation Between Zero Gravity and One Gravity." _Space Manufacturing Facilities (Space Colonies): Proceedings of the Princeton / AIAA / NASA Conference, May 7-9, 1975_, pages 137-149. Edited by Jerry Grey. American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics. -- Ted Hall |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
artificial gravity a different idea...maybe?
Christopher James Huff writes:
In article , (Gordon D. Pusch) wrote: Possibly the little detail that the "cylindrical surface" needs to be about a =MILE= in diameter to get the rotation rate down below 1 rpm @ 1 gee, since if it rotates faster than 1 rpm, the majority of human beings tested upchuck. (Even at 1rpm, a significant fraction of the people tested upchuck; you need to get the rotation rate down to about 0.25 rpm in order for the general population to not upchuck.) 893 meters radius for full 9.8m/s^2 acceleration at 1rpm, unless my calculations are off. Note use of the word "about" in front of "diameter." 1786 meters only differs by 11% from 1609 meters (~1 mile). But the "radius" just has to be distance from center of rotation, you don't need a complete cylinder. Two habitats at the ends of a 2km tether rotating at 0.6rpm would have 8m/s^2. Granted. However, the point I was attempting to make to the poster was that his naive notion that you could just spin the ship around an axis as in old SF novels or have a small diameter "centrifuge" section as in _2001_ does =NOT= work, unless someone makes a =REALLY= major advance in treating motion sickness. And we haven't really tested its effects on humans...we haven't had structures in which we *could* test it. Being close to the center will be more disorienting, and more likely to cause nausea, Why? Given a fixed rotation rate, the coriolis forces that case the disorientation are independent of radius, so one should get just as nauseous at the center of a 10 RPM space station as at its rim! And people may get used to rotations exceeding 1rpm. I would not care to bet my lunch on that hypothesis... -- Gordon D. Pusch perl -e '$_ = \n"; s/NO\.//; s/SPAM\.//; print;' |
#26
|
|||
|
|||
artificial gravity a different idea...maybe?
"Theodore W. Hall" writes:
"Gordon D. Pusch" wrote: ... the "cylindrical surface" needs to be about a =MILE= in diameter to get the rotation rate down below 1 rpm @ 1 gee, since if it rotates faster than 1 rpm, the majority of human beings tested upchuck. (Even at 1rpm, a significant fraction of the people tested upchuck; you need to get the rotation rate down to about 0.25 rpm in order for the general population to not upchuck.) Umm, no, it's not =THAT= bad. Many studies put the upper range of "comfort" at 3 or 4 rpm. Some put it as high as 6 rpm. Even a 50 meter radius is =NOT= what one would call a "small" cylindrical section! -- Gordon D. Pusch perl -e '$_ = \n"; s/NO\.//; s/SPAM\.//; print;' |
#27
|
|||
|
|||
artificial gravity a different idea...maybe?
In article ,
says... (Gordon D. Pusch) wrote in message ... Christopher James Huff writes: In article , (Gordon D. Pusch) wrote: Possibly the little detail that the "cylindrical surface" needs to be about a =MILE= in diameter to get the rotation rate down below 1 rpm @ 1 gee, since if it rotates faster than 1 rpm, the majority of human beings tested upchuck. (Even at 1rpm, a significant fraction of the people tested upchuck; you need to get the rotation rate down to about 0.25 rpm in order for the general population to not upchuck.) 893 meters radius for full 9.8m/s^2 acceleration at 1rpm, unless my calculations are off. Note use of the word "about" in front of "diameter." 1786 meters only differs by 11% from 1609 meters (~1 mile). But the "radius" just has to be distance from center of rotation, you don't need a complete cylinder. Two habitats at the ends of a 2km tether rotating at 0.6rpm would have 8m/s^2. Granted. However, the point I was attempting to make to the poster was that his naive notion that you could just spin the ship around an axis as in old SF novels or have a small diameter "centrifuge" section as in _2001_ does =NOT= work, unless someone makes a =REALLY= major advance in treating motion sickness. And we haven't really tested its effects on humans...we haven't had structures in which we *could* test it. Being close to the center will be more disorienting, and more likely to cause nausea, Why? Given a fixed rotation rate, the coriolis forces that case the disorientation are independent of radius, so one should get just as nauseous at the center of a 10 RPM space station as at its rim! Hum, nearer the center the coriolis force may be the same, but the G's are less. It may be that the difference between the two is an important factor. At the very center you'd be simply rotating slowly in 0g. You could stand that indefinitely. Disorientation could be less as you move to the center. This kind of thing needs testing, it's hard to predict. And people may get used to rotations exceeding 1rpm. I would not care to bet my lunch on that hypothesis... -- Gordon D. Pusch I remember riding a gravitron once. This is a ride in an amusement park that people go into and after it starts spinning everybody is You didn't lift your head from the wall and look around. I did once, disorientation and nausea was instant. Pretty profound actually. Marc |
#28
|
|||
|
|||
artificial gravity a different idea...maybe?
Zoltan Szakaly wrote:
[snip] I remember riding a gravitron once. This is a ride in an amusement park that people go into and after it starts spinning everybody is stuck to the inside surface standing facing the center. In a little while the floor drops out from under you and you are just stuck to the wall. I don't remember anybody vomiting. Zoltan I've been on a similar ride (floor doesn't drop, but once spun up, the whole thing is tilted up to about 45 degrees), but similarly, the forces were perpendicular to my body. Now if the same size ring were in free fall, and I tried walking 'upright' on it, I might not have enjoyed it as much. Now also throw in windows that would give uncomfortable visual references to a 'spinning' Earth below.... |
#29
|
|||
|
|||
artificial gravity a different idea...maybe?
"Gordon D. Pusch" wrote:
Given a fixed rotation rate, the coriolis forces that case the disorientation are independent of radius, so one should get just as nauseous at the center of a 10 RPM space station as at its rim! Yes, the nausea is mostly a consequence of rotation -- specifically: rotating one's head about an axis that's not aligned with the station's rotation. However, the ratio of Coriolis to centripetal acceleration is also an important design consideration. One would like to keep that ratio low. With a fixed radius, you can reduce that ratio by increasing the rotation rate, but then you come up against the nausea issue. There are trade-offs ... Christopher James Huff writes: And people may get used to rotations exceeding 1rpm. I would not care to bet my lunch on that hypothesis... Sorry, Gordon, but you're off by about an order of magnitude. 1 radian per second (9.55 rpm) is indeed too fast, but 1 rpm is not. Estimates of the upper limit of angular velocity for "comfortable" rotation: Hill & Schnitzer (1962) 4 rpm Gilruth (1969) 6 rpm "optimum" 2 rpm Gordon & Gervais (1969) 6 rpm Stone (1973) 6 rpm Graybiel (1977) 3 rpm * Cramer (1985) 3 rpm * "subjects experienced symptoms but were not significantly handicapped." Keep in mind that 50% of all astronauts / cosmonauts need 1 to 3 days to adapt their vestibular systems to microgravity. An equal adaptation period for artificial gravity would not be unreasonable, especially for a small exploration-class vehicle, appropriate for the first trips to Mars. * * * Hill, Paul R.; Schnitzer, Emanuel (1962). "Rotating Manned Space Stations." _Astronautics_, vol. 7, no. 9, p. 14-18, September 1962. American Rocket Society. Gilruth, Robert R. (1969). "Manned Space Stations - Gateway to our Future in Space." _Manned Laboratories in Space_, p. 1-10. Edited by S. Fred Singer. Springer-Verlag. Gordon, Theodore J.; Gervais, Robert L. (1969). "Critical Engineering Problems of Space Stations." _Manned Laboratories in Space_, p. 11-32. Edited by S. Fred Singer. Springer-Verlag. Stone, Ralph W. (1973). "An Overview of Artificial Gravity." _Fifth Symposium on the Role of the Vestibular Organs in Space Exploration_ (NASA SP 115), p. 23-33. NASA Scientific and Technical Information Division. Proceedings of a symposium held in 1970. Graybiel, Ashton (1977). "Some Physiological Effects of Alternation Between Zero Gravity and One Gravity." _Space Manufacturing Facilities (Space Colonies): Proceedings of the Princeton / AIAA / NASA Conference, May 7-9, 1975_, p. 137-149. Edited by Jerry Grey. American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics. Cramer, D. Bryant (1985). "Physiological Considerations of Artificial Gravity." _Applications of Tethers in Space_ (NASA CP 2364), vol. 1, p. 3.95-3.107. Edited by Alfred C. Cron. NASA Scientific and Technical Information Branch. Proceedings of a workshop held in Williamsburg, Virginia, June 15-17, 1983. -- Ted Hall |
#30
|
|||
|
|||
artificial gravity a different idea...maybe?
Roger Stokes wrote:
One concept that wasn't mentioned was a sleep centrifuge with the sleeper(s) lying parallel to the rotation axis - like the centrifuge at six flags magic mountain, but smaller. For example a 2 metre radius would give 0.5 g at 15 rpm. The rpm is higher than the recommended maximum of 6rpm, but sleep movements would be much more limited than waking movements, and would also mostly be co-axial with the rotation. Yes, but it would also be like bed rest on Earth. It wouldn't load the weight-bearing bones (especially, the spine and legs) and so would probably not be very effective against demineralization. The skeletal system needs axial loading to maintain its "normal" structure. -- Ted Hall |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
SPACE STATION IDEA | Jay | Space Station | 1 | November 22nd 03 01:10 PM |
Relevancy of the Educator Astronaut to the Space Program | stmx3 | Space Shuttle | 201 | October 28th 03 12:00 AM |
artificial gravity | Johnson.. | Space Station | 7 | August 22nd 03 05:48 AM |
"Big Rip" has problems with Thermodynamics ! | Morenga | Science | 9 | August 20th 03 02:22 PM |
Oceanographers Catch First Wave Of Gravity Mission's Success | Ron Baalke | Science | 13 | August 7th 03 06:24 AM |