1 / 58

The Architecture of Artificial-Gravity Habitats

The Architecture of Artificial-Gravity Habitats. Theodore W. Hall. Future in Space Operations (FISO) Colloquium 17 November 2010. 1. The Architecture of Artificial-Gravity Habitats. Theodore W. Hall. Future in Space Operations (FISO) Colloquium 17 November 2010. 2. Education: Architecture

jodig
Download Presentation

The Architecture of Artificial-Gravity Habitats

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. The Architecture ofArtificial-Gravity Habitats Theodore W. Hall Future in Space Operations (FISO) Colloquium17 November 2010 1

  2. The Architecture ofArtificial-Gravity Habitats Theodore W. Hall Future in Space Operations (FISO) Colloquium17 November 2010 2

  3. Education: Architecture B.S. ’79, M.Arch. ’81, Arch.D. ’94: University of Michigan Experience: Software Development ’80-’94: Systems Research ProgrammerArchitecture and Planning Research LaboratoryUniversity of Michigan ’94-’04: Postdoctoral Fellow & Research OfficerDepartment of ArchitectureChinese University of Hong Kong ’09- Research Computer SpecialistUniversity of Michigan 3D Lab (UM3D) “Expensive Hobby”: Space Architecture • Dissertation: “The Architecture of Artificial-Gravity Environmentsfor Long-Duration Space Habitation” • http://www.artificial-gravity.com/ • http://www.spacearchitect.org/ My Background. 3

  4. Adverse Effects of Micro Gravity: • Fluid redistribution • Fluid loss • Electrolyte imbalances • Cardiovascular changes • Red blood cell loss • Muscle damage • Bone damage • Hypecalcemia Why Artificial Gravity? 4

  5. Adverse Effects of Micro Gravity: • Immune suppression • Cell membrane thickening • Vertigo and disorientation • Nausea and malaise • Exercise incapacity • Olfactory suppression • Weight loss • Flatulence Why Artificial Gravity? 5

  6. Adverse Effects of Micro Gravity: • Facial distortion • Postural changes • Coordination changes Why Artificial Gravity? 6

  7. Why Artificial Gravity? 7

  8. Tsiolkovsky, 1903 Noordung, 1928 von Braun, 1952 Lockheed Corp., 1960 Historical Concepts. 8

  9. NASA LaRC & North American, 1962 Inflatable concept, 1962 Historical Concepts. 9

  10. Comfort chart, Hill and Schnitzer, 1962. 10

  11. Comfort chart, Gilruth, 1969. 11

  12. Comfort chart, Gordon and Gervais, 1969. 12

  13. Comfort chart, Stone, 1973. 13

  14. Comfort chart, Cramer, 1985. 14

  15. Fundamental weaknesses: • Too abstract. • Too precise. • Too difficult to read. Comfort charts. 15

  16. Comfort chart, composite. 16

  17. SpinCalc artificial-gravity calculator. 17

  18. SpinDoctor artificial-gravity simulator. 18

  19. Dropping particles, inertial view: h/Rf 19

  20. Dropping particles, rotating view: h/Rf 20

  21. Hopping particles, inertial view: v/V 21

  22. Hopping particles, rotating view: v/V 22

  23. Hopping particles, rotating view: v/V 23

  24. Acceleration ratio: 2 v/V 24

  25. Earth gravity. 25

  26. Artificial gravity at the limits of “comfort”. 26

  27. min. radius and velocitymin. mass and energy Artificial gravity at the limits of “comfort”. 27

  28. Artificial gravity at min. “comfort” R & V. 28

  29. Basketball in 1-g artificial gravity: free-throw. 29

  30. Basketball in 1-g artificial gravity: under the net. 30

  31. Apparent slope of flat floor. 31

  32. Apparent slope of flat floor: catenary arch. 32

  33. Apparent slope of straight ladder: catenary arch. 33

  34. Orient ladders normal to Coriolis acceleration. 34

  35. Orient ladders normal to Coriolis acceleration. 35

  36. Orient ladders normal to Coriolis acceleration. 36

  37. R = 67.1 mV = 14.0 m/sv = 1.0 m/sx = 3.8 mslope = 4º = 7% grade = 1:15 Apparent slope at min. agreed “comfort” R & V. 37

  38. R = 67.1 mV = 14.0 m/sv = –0.5 m/sx = 0.0 mlean = 4º Apparent slope at min. agreed “comfort” R & V. 38

  39. “BNTR Artificial Gravity Mars Mission.”[Borowski, Dudzinski, Sauls, Minsaas, 2006] Greater apparent slope at smaller R & V. 39

  40. Acent = 0.38 gW = 4.0 rpmR = 21.2 mV = 8.9 m/s “BNTR Artificial Gravity Mars Mission.”[Borowski, Dudzinski, Sauls, Minsaas, 2006] Greater apparent slope at smaller R & V. 40

  41. “BNTR Artificial Gravity Mars Mission.”[Borowski, Dudzinski, Sauls, Minsaas, 2006] Greater apparent slope at smaller R & V. 41

  42. floor slope = 13ºladder lean = 6º “BNTR Artificial Gravity Mars Mission.”[Borowski, Dudzinski, Sauls, Minsaas, 2006] Greater apparent slope at smaller R & V. 42

  43. “2001: A Space Odyssey.”[Kubrick, Clarke, 1968] Ladder in side wall – not recommended. 43

  44. “2001: A Space Odyssey.”[Kubrick, Clarke, 1968] Ladder in side wall – apparent lean. 44

  45. “VGRS.”[Emmart, 1989] Ladder in side wall – not recommended. 45

  46. Axial Most comfortable: • No Coriolis. • No apparent slope. • No floor curvature. • No ladders. • No gravity gradient. Least stable? • Twists to tangential. Module Orientation. 46

  47. Tangential Medium comfortable: • Coriolis. • Apparent slope. • Floor curvature. • No ladders. • No gravity gradient. Medium stable: • Needs balance. Module Orientation. 47

  48. Radial Least comfortable: • Coriolis. • Ladders. • Gravity gradients. • Disoriented plan. Most stable. Module Orientation. 48

  49. Experiments in form and color for orientation. 49

  50. Experiments in form and color for orientation. 50

More Related