This came in an email forward from a friend. It was part of a story about an advertising slogan contest decades ago, the truth of which I do not know.

All I know is that this is what truth-in-advertising should really look like:

## Wednesday, March 30, 2016

## Monday, March 28, 2016

### Sailboat Fuel

This is hilarious. If you know what "sailboat fuel" really is.

If you don't, I'm talking about a simple sailboat with no auxiliary engine.

If you don't, I'm talking about a simple sailboat with no auxiliary engine.

## Thursday, March 3, 2016

### Effects of Microgravity Demand Artificial Gravity

See also Update 5-7-16 below in red text

A search on the internet for the effects of microgravity (weightlessness) upon the human body reveals the following effects known so far:

A search on the internet for the effects of microgravity (weightlessness) upon the human body reveals the following effects known so far:

1.
Bone decalcification (associated with kidney
stones and gallstones)

2.
Muscle atrophy (seems to be reversible)

3.
Weakened heart

4.
Lengthened spine (unknown risk of recompression)

5.
Redistribution of blood and fluids (seems
reversible)

6.
Effects upon vision due to redistributed fluid
pressures on eyeball (may or may not be reversible – unknown)

7.
Some sort of effect on the immune system that is
not understood

This list is very probably incomplete. A very few astronauts and cosmonauts have
been in space weightless for a year (most missions on the ISS are about 6
months long, but there is one cosmonaut
who spent 437 days in space). A Mars
mission is very likely 2.5 to 3 years long.
We don’t know all the answers yet,
but we know enough to worry that a Mars mission spent weightless (or in
low gravity while there) would very likely kill or permanently-injure a
crew.

However, there is one
way to avoid this danger entirely, and
yet still go to Mars and the other destinations “out there”: artificial gravity. Based on known physics, there is one and only one practical way to do
this: centrifugal force (“spin
gravity”). You cannot do that riding
around in a simple Apollo-like space capsule,
you must be traveling in an object large enough to spin at a practical
speed. But you do not have to break the
bank building “battlestar galactica”,
either.

To do spin gravity, you substitute the centrifugal force of
spinning motion for the pull of gravity.
Two things are important to the acceleration you get: radius away from spin center, and spin rate. The science equation for this is very
simple, but only works if you use
consistent units of measure. Doing it as
a ratio and proportion lets you substitute whatever units of measure are
convenient and familiar:

a = R ω

^{2}science equation: a=acceleration m/sec2 (or ft/sec2), ω=spin rate radian/sec, R=radius m (or ft)
gees =
(R/56 m)(N/4 rpm)

^{2}ratio-and-proportion with R=meters, N = rpm
If you like feet better than meters, then use R measured in feet with 184 ft, instead of 56 m. R is the distance from the spin center (usually
the center of gravity) to the location at which the acceleration is to be
measured. Measuring spin rate in rpm is
pretty common for just about everybody.

Notice that you must use a large R to get a certain level of
gees at a low rpm, and vice versa. The larger R is, the bigger and more expensive your vehicle
is. The larger the rpm, the more likely you are to upset the inner
ear balance organs, disorienting your
occupants and making them sick. It’s a tradeoff.

The upper limit on rpm is fuzzy. Most untrained folks can immediately tolerate
3 to 4 rpm quite well. With training, and plenty of time to work up to speed and get
used to it, some folks can tolerate
about 12 rpm. At 4 rpm, the radius for 1 gee is 56 meters. At 12 rpm,
the radius for 1 gee is only 6.22 meter.

There is a second problem with small R: the gradient of acceleration. If you design for 1 gee at the deck, your occupant’s head is above that deck at a
lower value of R, and so a lower level
of gee. The ultimate effect is lower
blood pressure in his head than his feet.
Make that effect too big, and he
faints.

Most folks pulling high gee turns in airplanes while seated
upright will faint within seconds at 6 gees without a “gee suit”, but can withstand 2 or even 3 gees quite
well. A seated person is only about 1 m
“tall”, as opposed to nearly 2 m tall
while standing, so there’s an extra
factor of two floating around in this somewhere. We do need to be conservative.

A real aeromedical expert would know far more than I do
about this, but I would hazard the guess
that we don’t want any more difference in blood pressure head-to-foot than
would be equivalent to standing in a uniform 1.5 gee gravity field (3 gees of turn
reduced by the factor of 2 for sitting vs standing).

We evolved to deal with the head-to-foot blood pressure
difference at 1 normal earth gee, so
that leaves 0.5 gee’s worth of additional difference over a nominal height near
2 m. So the max radial gee gradient in spin
gravity designs ought to be near 0.25 gees/m,
or maybe a little (but not much) higher,
say 0.3 gees/m.

In spin gravity designs,
the radial gee gradient is inherent,
and is proportional to spin rate squared, without any radial dependence. To write its equation, you divide the acceleration equation by
radius:

a/R = ω

^{2}science equation
gees/m
= (N/4 rpm)

^{2}/56m ratio and proportion
Using about 0.3 gees/m as a maximum gee gradient, the maximum spin rate allowable is about 16
rpm. Since we don’t want spin rates
above about 4 to 12 rpm anyway (so as not to sicken or disorient
occupants), this gradient limitation should
not be an issue in our design.

So, it boils down to
using the smallest radius and the largest-tolerable spin rate to achieve
whatever artificial gravity level is therapeutic. We have direct experience at one full gee and
at zero-gee weightless in space. We have
absolutely no direct long-term experience at any other level. Thus,
in the absence of better information,
we have to assume we will deliver 1 full gee in our design. So:

__Allowable N, rpm__

__R, m for 1 full gee__

__radial gradient, gee/m__

4 (max,
untrained) 56 0.018 < 0.25-to-0.3 max

8 14 0.071 < 0.25-to-0.3 max

12
(max, trained) 6.2 0.16 < 0.25-to-0.3 max

For well-trained astronauts going on a trip to Mars, 8 or possibly even 12 rpm spin rates might be
entirely acceptable. The resulting spin
radii of 6.2 to 14 m are consistent with the lengths of capsules, habitat modules, service modules, kick stages,
and the like. A stack 13 to 30 m
long, spun end over end with the
astronauts at one end, provides both a
simple rigid structure and one full gee at that end.

There is no need to incur the additional failure modes of a
cable-connected spin system, nor is
there any need to build a gigantic spinning wheel design, nor is there any need to incur the inert mass
penalties of a truss-connected design. Simpler
really is better for these designs, just
as is generally true.

For more-ordinary citizens making such trips, you have to slow the spin rate to what they
can tolerate, which is about 4 rpm. The resulting spin radius is 56 m, which is a much larger structure. But, if
more-ordinary citizens are going to a place like Mars, we are talking about larger vehicles
anyway, because we are talking about
missions that establish large bases or full-blown colonies. You still spin a long stack end-over-end as
the simplest, lightest, safest structure you can design. It’s somewhat over a football field long at
around 112 m or so, minimum.

In a design that spins end-over-end, there is only one radius where you can have a
deck for a floor at one gee. That may
not matter, because we do not fight
gravity here at home while we are prone asleep,
one third of round-the-clock.
That means your sleeping quarters can be at reduced gee, even weightless. Designing long cylindrical modules means you
will have multiple decks, with less and
less gravity, as you climb toward the
spin center.

You send landers and surface equipment separately to
Mars. This spinning vehicle is what takes
the astronauts there and back again,
fully fit and healthy both ways.

I would put the daily work stations and the gymnasium
facilities out at the greatest radius, nearest
one full gee, to inherently get in a
full day’s exercise against spin gravity,
without having to deliberately schedule it. I would put the sleeping quarters nearer the
spin center, because gravity while
sleeping doesn’t matter to good health. Recreational
stuff I would put somewhere in between.

Given the very practical sizes involved, there is no excuse to risk microgravity
diseases by flying weightless to Mars.
We do need to experiment with these spinning-baton designs adjacent to
the ISS, rather than risking a Mars crew
in an untried design. There’s no excuse
to take that risk, either.

Concept for Manned Mars Transit Vehicle with 1-Gee
Artificial Spin Gravity

For doing variable gravity research in Earth orbit, a spinning baton design is also just
fine, is easily assembled in orbit by
docking modules together, and has
enormous interior volume (larger than ISS by far). It also has all the partial gravity levels
available for experimentation, not just
0 gee.

This is about a dozen or so Atlas-5 HLV or Falcon-Heavy
flights, at around $100M or so each. So you could get a far larger, more capable,
and incredibly useful space station this way, for around maybe $2-3 B, versus the $100+B it took to build ISS. And ISS cannot be used to research partial
gravity because it cannot spin. This spinning concept does
need Bigelow B-330 modules re-rigged inside with radial decks.

Concept for Artificial Gravity Adjunct (or Replacement) for
ISS

An even more practical ISS free-flyer annex could be had by increasing the spin rate to 8 rpm, with trained personnel. That reduces to a cluster more like the Manned Mars Transit vehicle depicted above. A linear baton of 4 modifed B-330's with a hard center module would be not quite 30 m long. That center module would be an entry airlock, with a docking port, some solar panels, and some spin-up/spin-down flywheels.

Spun at about 8 rpm, you have 1 full gee at the ends, and every partial gee level down to zero at the center. This could identify in 2 or 3 years what level of partial gee is "enough" for long deep space missions. That answer would help support manned exploration for decades, perhaps a century, to come. This is a crucial thing to do.

Just for the sake of argument, let's assume it costs $100M to make each of these modules a flyable item. Let's also assume that it costs somewhere near $100M to launch each one. Let the ISS crew catch and dock them. So, you get a human experimental station for partial gee research, plus 1300+ extra cubic meters of space station volume, for a price in the neighborhood of $1B. That's less than 1% of the original construction cost for the ISS, although such hardware was not available back then. It is now!

Now, if I can sit down with open-sources knowledge and come up with a thing like this, in about half an hour, why hasn't NASA already started doing this? If they are truly serious about sending men beyond the moon, that is.

__:__**Update 5-7-16**An even more practical ISS free-flyer annex could be had by increasing the spin rate to 8 rpm, with trained personnel. That reduces to a cluster more like the Manned Mars Transit vehicle depicted above. A linear baton of 4 modifed B-330's with a hard center module would be not quite 30 m long. That center module would be an entry airlock, with a docking port, some solar panels, and some spin-up/spin-down flywheels.

Spun at about 8 rpm, you have 1 full gee at the ends, and every partial gee level down to zero at the center. This could identify in 2 or 3 years what level of partial gee is "enough" for long deep space missions. That answer would help support manned exploration for decades, perhaps a century, to come. This is a crucial thing to do.

Just for the sake of argument, let's assume it costs $100M to make each of these modules a flyable item. Let's also assume that it costs somewhere near $100M to launch each one. Let the ISS crew catch and dock them. So, you get a human experimental station for partial gee research, plus 1300+ extra cubic meters of space station volume, for a price in the neighborhood of $1B. That's less than 1% of the original construction cost for the ISS, although such hardware was not available back then. It is now!

Now, if I can sit down with open-sources knowledge and come up with a thing like this, in about half an hour, why hasn't NASA already started doing this? If they are truly serious about sending men beyond the moon, that is.

Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)