A Space & astronomy forum. SpaceBanter.com

Go Back   Home » SpaceBanter.com forum » Space Science » Policy
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Orbital Gravity Lab?



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #11  
Old May 4th 18, 02:53 PM posted to sci.space.policy
Fred J. McCall[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 10,018
Default Orbital Gravity Lab?

David Spain wrote on Fri, 4 May 2018 09:22:30
-0400:

Another thing we just don't know, is whether it is good enough to have
limited exposure to 'g' to overcome the deficits of long duration in 0g
or low g. Thus it becomes routine to spend some time working out in a
centrifuge and the rest of the time in 0g or Mars gravity or whatever.
Call it extra-terrestrial PE....

I remember the classic video of one of the Skylab astronauts (was it
Conrad?) getting their exercise by 'running' around the inner
circumference of the Skylab habitation module.


I seem to recall some sort of bungee contraption with a treadmill,
too, but I can't imagine that would be adequate. We need something
that can do variable gravity so we can see if the effects diminish
linearly, just how much exposure per day to what g level works, etc.

Right now we're talking about 'fast' Mars trajectories to minimize
radiation and g effects, but that doesn't get you to the 'live and
work in space' place.


--
"The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable
man persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore,
all progress depends on the unreasonable man."
--George Bernard Shaw
  #12  
Old May 4th 18, 02:58 PM posted to sci.space.policy
Fred J. McCall[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 10,018
Default Orbital Gravity Lab?

David Spain wrote on Fri, 4 May 2018 09:39:09
-0400:

On 5/4/2018 6:14 AM, Fred J. McCall wrote:

You'll need some reaction wheels to control pointing and some engines
to unload the reaction wheels when they become saturated. Think about
the mass of the station when compared to the mass of a human being...


As an aside apropos of nothing, I remember reading an elaboration I
think it was by A.C. Clarke himself about how the centrifuge would have
worked on the Discovery in 2001 A Space Odyssey. It may have been from
the book "The Making of 2001: A Space Odyssey". In it he mentions a
reaction wheel used to contain the angular momemtum of the centrifuge
when it was spun down and to assist in its spin up. I suppose if mass is
no object, it could also be used to counter-rotate against the
centrifuge if it was massive enough. On the Discovery the centrifuge was
completely contained within the spherical pressure hull.


The problem, as you mentioned, is vibration unless the station is
truly massive and the centrifuge is incredibly well isolated. You
really need a trio of stations; a habitat that rotates so you're
living in gravity, a nearby free-flyer for microgravity experiments,
and a more distant free-flyer for optical work (so you're not getting
contamination from outgassing from the other pieces).

--
"The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable
man persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore,
all progress depends on the unreasonable man."
--George Bernard Shaw
  #13  
Old May 5th 18, 12:07 AM posted to sci.space.policy
Alain Fournier[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 548
Default Orbital Gravity Lab?

On May/4/2018 at 1:34 AM, Fred J. McCall wrote :
Alain Fournier wrote on Thu, 3 May 2018
20:56:01 -0400:

On May/3/2018 at 8:30 PM, Fred J. McCall wrote :

'Spinning' a BFS makes a lot of things too hard and it's not really
big enough to let you have appreciable spin gravity without making
people sick.


I agree with you. But one of the things that would be interesting to
investigate is whether a small gravity would help. I don't think a
one percent of a g would help much. But it would be nice to know that,
not just think it.


If you want a real 'gravity lab', I would suggest something other than
B330 modules attached to a tether so that they can change the distance
between them. Then you give them enough propulsion so that they can
keep a reasonable rotation rate to adjust for angular momentum effects
from moving them closer together or further apart. Then you can
select the gravity level you want to test at, do that for however long
you need to, then adjust the distance and test at a different level of
gravity.


The only thing I don't like about that is that it wasn't done 20 years ago.


Alain Fournier
  #14  
Old May 7th 18, 06:00 AM posted to sci.space.policy
Fred J. McCall[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 10,018
Default Orbital Gravity Lab?

JF Mezei wrote on Sun, 6 May 2018
15:27:18 -0400:

On 2018-05-04 09:12, David Spain wrote:

concrete. If I recall, a major objection to these being attached to the
ISS is the vibrations they would induce that would interfere with other
experiments.


One could argue ISS should have been primarily a spinning station, with
0G experiments at the centre. This would have given crews a better
environment and I have to assume that crystal growing experiments that
really require 0G don't take that much space and the module at centre of
the circular station would provide that environment.


One could argue anything. The question is whether the argument makes
sense and is executable. From the things you say, I assume you're
thinking about the old 'wheel' design for a station. Think about how
big such a station would have to be. ISS can use all the 'walls' of
the modules, since the whole works is in 0g. That wouldn't be true on
a spinning station. How many launches to get the pieces up? How do
you assemble it? How long before first occupancy?

You're also confused about 0g at the center. You'd have some small
amount of gravity with angular forces. Not a good place to do things
like trying to grow 0g crystals.


HOWEVER: while growing crystals is one aspect, one more important aspect
was studying whether humans can live in 0G for a long time and what
measures/exercises rediuce or eliminate the negative impacts.

If ISS human experiments have shown it is not possible to eliminate 0g
problems with long duration flights, this is a very important finding.


'IF'? Do you bother to know ANYTHING about the things you bring up?


And ISS has allowed to quantify body performance degradation, so that on
a flight to Mars, they can predict what conditions humans would be in
when they arrive, if they follow similar exercise regime as on ISS.


To some extent this is true.


So not having artificial gravity on ISS is/was an important step in
learning about living in space. (even if the end result is a failure to
learn how to stop body degradation).


But it also prevents any follow-on research.



I need to do the math on this hand-wave of mine. It'd be interesting to
see, given the dimensions of BFS, how much spin could be induced before
ill crew effects and to what degree of 'g' that would yield.


You also need to consider ECLSS. O2 gnerators, toilets and anything else
that uses liquids. There are vast differences how they work n 0g versus
gravity. If a component is designed with assumption bubbles don't rise,
but with artificial gravity, bubbles move, then how it is mounted
matters because bubbles may be flowing to the bottom or sides, not
nessessarily to the "top" of the unit.

So if BFS is gonna spin, it really needt to be designed as such. (and
also consider whether it will have one large burst of accelerationa and
then coast for 6 months, or use slow but constant acceleration and then
slow but constant deceleration once more than halfway to Mars).


It's not big enough. Spinning around its long axis you get a couple
hundredths of a g at the outer skin for rotation rates that humans can
tolerate. Spinning it around its short axis isn't particularly
useful, either. In either case, you'd need everything built so that
'up' could be two different directions; through the tail when landed
or under acceleration and some other direction when spinning.


--
"Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar
territory."
--G. Behn
  #15  
Old May 8th 18, 12:57 PM posted to sci.space.policy
Fred J. McCall[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 10,018
Default Orbital Gravity Lab?

JF Mezei wrote on Tue, 8 May 2018
04:05:43 -0400:

On 2018-05-07 01:00, Fred J. McCall wrote:

You're also confused about 0g at the center. You'd have some small
amount of gravity with angular forces. Not a good place to do things
like trying to grow 0g crystals.


The centre lab could rotate relative to the rotating station to give it
a neutral position relative to space.


So now you've got the same vibration problem that you get with a
treadmill. If you're going to play that game, there are easier ways.


The vibration isolation racks
developped by NASA would eliminate any vibration from the station
retating around the structure.


Yeah, sure. And if frogs had wings they wouldn't bump their asses
when they hopped.


--
"Ignorance is preferable to error, and he is less remote from the
truth who believes nothing than he who believes what is wrong."
-- Thomas Jefferson
  #16  
Old May 8th 18, 11:15 PM posted to sci.space.policy
Fred J. McCall[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 10,018
Default Orbital Gravity Lab?

JF Mezei wrote on Tue, 8 May 2018
15:36:53 -0400:

On 2018-05-08 07:57, Fred J. McCall wrote:

So now you've got the same vibration problem that you get with a
treadmill. If you're going to play that game, there are easier ways.


Which is why they have vibration isolation racks for stuff that really
needs vibration free environment.


Said racks being in a largely vibration free environment. Believe
what you want. You're too stupid to try to educate.


--
"Ignorance is preferable to error, and he is less remote from the
truth who believes nothing than he who believes what is wrong."
-- Thomas Jefferson
  #17  
Old May 9th 18, 02:21 AM posted to sci.space.policy
Fred J. McCall[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 10,018
Default Orbital Gravity Lab?

JF Mezei wrote on Tue, 8 May 2018
15:36:53 -0400:

On 2018-05-08 07:57, Fred J. McCall wrote:

So now you've got the same vibration problem that you get with a
treadmill. If you're going to play that game, there are easier ways.


Which is why they have vibration isolation racks for stuff that really
needs vibration free environment.


How cute. You probably think your waterproof watch is actually
waterproof, too.

Hint: That **** is very limited and certainly won't isolate from the
sort of thing you're talking about.


--
"Ignorance is preferable to error, and he is less remote from the
truth who believes nothing than he who believes what is wrong."
-- Thomas Jefferson
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Gravity = mass-gravity + positron-space-gravity #370 Atom Totality4th ed Archimedes Plutonium[_2_] Astronomy Misc 0 March 15th 11 07:03 AM
Gravity = mass-gravity + positron-space-gravity; superfluid heliumbehaviour #368 Atom Totality 4th ed Archimedes Plutonium[_2_] Astronomy Misc 0 March 12th 11 09:08 AM
Gravity = mass-gravity + positron-space-gravity; Ida & Dactyl #367Atom Totality 4th ed Archimedes Plutonium[_2_] Astronomy Misc 0 March 11th 11 09:10 PM
GRAVITY-ORBITAL MOTION ACE Astronomy Misc 0 February 13th 08 01:59 PM
ORBITAL MOTI9ON DOES NOT REQUIRE A FORCE OF GRAVITY ACE Astronomy Misc 1 February 26th 07 09:58 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 12:41 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 SpaceBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.