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:

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 ω² 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 = ω²    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

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.  

Suits and Atmospheres for Space

Update 1-10-17:  There is one additional limit to consider.  Below about 3 psi pressure of pure oxygen, the absolute humidity is so low,  it causes the lungs to dry out, crack,  and bleed,  if exposure is long-term.  For a pure oxygen suit, the exposure time is actually fairly short,  and the pressures proposed in this article (2.67 to 3.81 psia) are pretty close to the limit anyway,  so they should not present a problem.  The two-gas habitation atmospheres,  where exposure is long-term,  are proposed to be much higher (6.8 to 10.6 psia at 30% oxygen by volume),  thus avoiding the problem completely. 

Update  2-16-16:  Had the wrong plots for Figures 10 & 11;  now corrected.

This article updates and supersedes earlier articles on this subject.  Those are:

Date           title             

1-15-16       Astronaut Facing Drowning Points Out Need for Better Space Suit

11-17-14    Space Suit and Habitat Atmospheres

2-11-14      On-Orbit Repair and Assembly Facility

1-21-11     Fundamental Design Criteria for Alternative Space Suit Approaches

Background

Up to now,  space suits have been designed with 100% oxygen atmospheres inside at suit pressures equaling or even exceeding the partial pressure of oxygen in Earthly air near sea level.  That is probably “overkill”,  which makes the design of more supple space suits difficult,  whether they are conventional “full pressure” suits or the alternative mechanical counterpressure (MCP) suits.  Space station atmospheres have usually been two-gas:  oxygen with nitrogen for dilution,  similar to Earthly air. 

Criteria

There are four things of importance to consider when running numbers for suit and habitation atmosphere design:  (1) the displacement of dry breathing gas pressure by water vapor pressure inside the moist lungs,  reducing the effective partial pressure of oxygen driving diffusion of oxygen across the lung tissues into the blood,  (2) how much or how little oxygen is really needed to stay functional,  (3) reducing the fire danger posed by oxygen enrichment,  and (4) reducing or eliminating the “pre-breathe time” necessary to blow off dissolved nitrogen (or other dilution gases) from the blood when transitioning from a multiple-gas atmosphere to a pure oxygen suit.  These are independent of suit type.

Water Vapor Displacement Effect

The movement of oxygen,  nitrogen,  other dilution gases (if any),  and carbon dioxide across lung membranes is a diffusion process,  driven by the differences of partial pressures,  including those of the dissolved gases in the blood.  Unlike those,  the water vapor in the lungs is dominated by simple evaporation of the liquid phase at body temperature,  attempting to reach the equilibrium value.  This approach to equilibrium (a number straight from the steam tables) is not perfect,  but it’s not a bad estimate either,  and it is easy to compute,  when non-equilibrium is not. 

Having non-equilibrium water vapor pressure reduces the actual water vapor pressure,  and thus reduces dry gas displacement.  This leads to slightly-higher oxygen content inside the wet lung than one would calculate for equilibrium.  Thus equilibrium design is a lower bound on oxygenation:  you actually do slightly better than that in real life.  It’s easy and it’s slightly conservative:  a good tool.

Human body temperature is 98.6 F (37.0 C),  at which the equilibrium vapor pressure of water is 0.061921 atm.  That is the value you subtract from the supplied dry breathing gas pressure to determine the partial pressure of that dry breathing gas inside the wet lungs.  The volume percentage of oxygen in that breathing gas,  applied to the in-lung partial pressure of dry breathing gas,  is then the partial pressure of oxygen in the air inhaled into the wet lungs.  It will be less than the partial pressure of oxygen in the dry breathing gas.  But,  this wet in-lung oxygen is your real design criterion.

How Much or How Little Oxygen is Needed?

This depends upon whom you ask.  The USAF says pilots must use supplemental oxygen when flying in an unpressurized cockpit above 10,000 feet.  The USN is worried more than USAF about loss of night vision,  something well known to be sensitive to hypoxia.  So USN says to use supplemental oxygen above 5000 feet.  The FAA says that pilots flying above 10,000 feet for more than 30 minutes,  and that pilots flying above 14,000 feet for any time at all,  must use supplemental oxygen.  These FAA requirements apply to all civil aircraft,  commercial or private. 

Most of humanity lives within several hundred feet of sea level:  call them “flatlanders” for convenience.  There are lots of people living in cities near 5000 feet elevation.  Flatlanders visiting these elevated places have essentially zero problems acclimatizing almost immediately.  There are also quite a few cities around the world at 10,000 feet.  Flatlanders visiting these elevated places require nothing to a few days to acclimatize,  leading to few if any problems.  Max airliner cabin altitude is also 10,000 feet. 

There are a very few cities in this world located near 15,000 feet above sea level.  The people who live there are well-acclimatized,  but visitors might require significant time to acclimatize,  and will experience some mild problems until they do.  But they eventually do acclimatize,  on a time scale of days to weeks,  usually.  Designing to a 15,000 foot equivalency is certainly feasible,  therefore.  

There are no cities,  but there are a very few rural herders,  and some mountain climbers,  at 20,000 feet who use no supplemental oxygen.  Not very many flatlanders can acclimatize to this,  and it takes months or years to do so for permanent residency.  Yet almost no one dies from this exposure,  especially if it is not prolonged.  So that’s too high for practical design equivalency,  but it is survivable. 

What that suggests is that space suits and habitat atmospheres should be easily feasible and quite acceptable anywhere between sea level and 10,000-to-perhaps-15,000 feet elevation-equivalent oxygenation.  Based on the water vapor displacement discussion above,  the criteria by which to measure this is the wet in-lung oxygen partial pressure,  not the oxygen partial pressure in the dry ambient air at whatever equivalent altitude that we are considering. 

Fire Danger

This is a judgmental factor,  governed by simple human experience.  Most supplemental oxygen systems range from 50% to 100% oxygen,  with well-known fire dangers.  Most hospital oxygen is 60%,  also with well-known fire dangers.  NASA’s rough rule-of-thumb is that nothing over 30% oxygen is safe enough.  For this article,  I will use the 30% max oxygen criterion. 

Pre-Breathe Time

Both oxygen and nitrogen dissolve in the blood.  If you move to another atmosphere at lowered oxygen and nitrogen partial pressures,  what’s in your blood must come out of solution,  a process that requires time.  The bigger the differences in partial pressures driving the solution and un-solution rates,  the faster the process.  Except,  if you try to do this too fast,  the gases form bubbles in your blood before they can diffuse into your exhalation.  This is “the bends”,  which can be quite damaging,  even fatal. 

A person in a space habitation with a multiple-gas atmosphere must generally put on a suit with a pure oxygen atmosphere.  The nitrogen (and any other dilution gases) in his blood must come out of his blood,  but without forming bubbles.  This takes time spent breathing pure oxygen at near-habitation pressures,  before reducing the pressure to the suit design point and going outside.  This time is called the “nitrogen blow-off” or “pre-breathe” time. 

There is a rough rule of thumb derived from deep sea diving experiences,  used by NASA,  that says that if the ratio of nitrogen partial pressure to suit atmosphere pressure is 1.2 or less,  then the required pre-breathe time is zero (decompression may safely be immediate).  Whether this applies separately to all dilution gases,  or collectively to the sum of their partial pressures,  is perhaps still unclear,  but a conservative design approach says apply it to the collective sum.  So that is what I do here. 

What is Required Not to Asphyxiate at High Altitude or in Space

You must have sufficient oxygen pressure in your lungs to oxygenate the blood.  When that oxygen pressure is larger than the local ambient atmospheric pressure at altitude,  a vented oxygen mask cannot work:  you must then breathe oxygen at pressure-above-ambient.  This is called “pressure breathing”,  and it makes you subject to two classes of serious,  even fatal,  problems. 

The immediate effect is from trying to breathe at about 2 psi or more above ambient pressure.  This ruptures the lung tissues,  and is called “pneumothorax”.  It is irreversible and fatal:  you literally drown in your own blood.  This risk is well known among divers;  it is why you never,  ever hold your breath while diving with a breathing rig.  Rising as little as 4 feet while holding your breath can kill you.

One of the longer-term effects is something called “edema”,  which is body parts painfully swelling up with gases and fluids driven out of the blood.  These go into the spaces between cells in the other tissues,  which is what causes the swelling.  For small exposed body parts,  this takes a while:  something like 30 minutes for a hand or foot exposed to vacuum,  when the rest of the body is not.  It can happen quicker with whole-body exposure:  something like 10 minutes. 

The other longer-term effect is simple blood pooling in uncompressed extremities,  like the arms,  and especially the legs,  driven there by the pressure differences.  You faint pretty quickly from this,  something like 10 minutes’ exposure at most,  5-10 seconds at minimum.  It’s quite similar to high gee-exposure in flight:  blood pools in the legs,  leaving your brain starved,  and you faint. 

So you must have pressure-breathing of oxygen,  but your body must also be compressed by the same pressure,  and this has to be fairly-evenly distributed.  This body compression is called “counterpressure”.  Many people were hurt,  disabled,  even killed,  learning these rules.

History of High-Altitude Suits and Space Suits

There are two known ways to achieve the counterpressure:  (1) put yourself inside a gas-tight balloon so that the gas pressure you breathe is also the counterpressure applied to your body,  or (2) use a breathing gas helmet and use very tight garments to mechanically apply the counterpressure all over your body.  The first approach is called a “full pressure suit”,  and the second approach has been implemented as something called a “partial pressure suit”,  or more generically,  a “mechanical counterpressure” suit (MCP suit).  The body simply does not care how the counterpressure is applied. 

The first successful means of pressure-breathing at unsurvivable altitudes was a full pressure suit literally adapted from a deep-sea diver’s hard-hat diving dress,  in the mid 1930’s.  This was literally a rubber balloon with cloth inside to ease friction donning the suit,  and protective canvas on the outside to prevent ruptures to the rubber balloon layer.  Unlike the deep sea application,  this suit is inflated above ambient pressures,  which stiffens the garment immensely.  You’re sealed inside,  so moisture builds up from breath and sweat.  And you are well-insulated and so cannot get rid of body heat.  Movement was extremely restricted in such suits,  and they were extremely uncomfortable,  even debilitating.  A person wearing one could actually do very little in the way of useful activity.

These difficulties were side-stepped with the partial pressure suit of the late 1940’s.  Tubes called capstans were inflated,  drawing the garment very tight about the torso,  arms and legs.  This provided mechanical counterpressure for the breathing oxygen at pressure in the helmet.  That counterpressure was barely adequate and quite uneven.  Hands and feet were left uncompressed.  This was adequate for about 10 minutes maximum,  which was good enough for very high-altitude depressurization accidents and bailouts.  It served well into the 1960’s and beyond,  for those applications.

 Figure 1 – Partial Pressure Suit,  Left;  Early Full Pressure Suit,  Right,  note bellows easing joints

Starting in the late 1950’s,  the advent of high-altitude spy planes and the beginnings of human spaceflight required something better than the partial pressure suit with its short protection interval.  The full pressure suit was updated with better joints that flexed easier,  and by the Apollo program,  water-cooled underwear was added to help keep the astronaut cooler as he worked in the suit.  

The suits and life support backpacks got very large and heavy,  because of these heat and moisture control requirements.  Mobility,  while better,  was still quite restricted.  Particularly difficult is doing anything but rather gross tasks with the clumsy,  bulky pressure gloves.  The higher the suit pressure,  the worse this problem is.  Such suit designs went from 200 pounds of suit and equipment on the moon with Apollo,  to nearly 400 pounds in the shuttle,  and on the space station today.  

 Figure 2 – A Modern Full Pressure Suit as Used on the Space Shuttle (also has maneuvering thrusters)

Suits like this are designed as little “personal spaceships” surrounding the astronaut.  The one garment must protect against any and all conceivable hazards.  Requirements can be contradictory. 

This kind of thing simply will not work very well for astronauts visiting the surfaces of other worlds (moon,  Mars,  etc.).  Movement and joint flexion are still too restricted.  The suits are heavy enough and clumsy enough to limit the ability of an astronaut who has fallen to get back up without help.  If the suit pressure is lowered,  these restrictions ease slightly,  but there are limits to how much change can be made.  But,  this is where we have been since about 1960. 

Except,  for some extremely interesting experiments in MCP,  that were never seriously developed. 

Experiments in MCP

In the mid to late 1960’s,  Dr. Paul Webb,  an expert in high-altitude crew survival,  conducted experiments with an improved MCP suit approach.  He substituted elastic compression garments for the clothing drawn tight by inflated air capstans.  At that time,  the elastic materials used in pantyhose were brand new,  and he used them.  This suit design approach was intended for Apollo on the moon,  but he could not get the design fully developed in time.  It’s been mostly forgotten ever since. 

These materials are not gas-tight;  they are quite porous.  You sweat right through them to cool,  just as with Earthly clothing.  There is no gas pressure in your clothing,  your skin is really actually exposed to vacuum,  but your clothing squeezes you,  thus countering your breathing gas pressure.  That’s all that is really required.  See Figure 3.  The backpack contained liquid makeup oxygen in a Dewar,  plus controls.

No water-cooled underwear is needed,  which eliminates the risk of drowning when your underwear springs a leak (something seen at least twice now with full pressure suits). 

Puncture a full pressure suit,  and you will die if it deflates before you can get inside.  Puncture an elastic leotard (or even the old partial pressure suit),  and there is no leak:  there is no gas in the clothing to leak out.  If the hole is under about 0.1 inch in size,  you may safely ignore it.  Simply sew it up later,  once inside.  If it is bigger,  it still won’t kill you.  You can avoid local vacuum injury to the exposed skin by a simple tight wrap of something like duct tape.  Fix it later when you go inside,  by sewing it up. 

These elastic leotards are easily launderable;  full pressure suits are not.  That is a crucial advantage in dirty,  dusty places like the moon and Mars,  and for repeated long-term use anywhere. 

And Webb changed the design philosophy:  think of this as a pressure-breathing helmet and vacuum-protective underwear,  over which you don whatever protective outerwear fits the task at hand.  

 Figure 3 – Paul Webb’s “Elastic Leotard” MCP Suit of about 1968

Figure 4 – The MCP “Elastic Leotard” Provides Very Excellent Mobility

Dr. Webb’s experiments clearly demonstrated the suppleness and mobility achievable in this MCP elastic approach.  The fact that his test subject was not wearing the insulated coveralls and hiking boots needed for the moon or Mars makes no difference.  Those apparel items are something bought at Walmart or its equivalent.  They do not need to be incorporated into the vacuum-protective underwear.  Nor would they have added any significant impediment to the test subject wearing the elastic leotard. 

The back bend maneuver shown in Figure 4 is completely impossible in today’s full pressure suits.  Yet this test subject in an MCP suit could do the maneuver.  Plus,  the much smaller and lighter backpack evident in Figure 3 would not have compromised this ability. 

Likewise,  the ladder-climbing exercise in Figure 5 would also be virtually impossible in today’s full pressure suits.  It was barely possible in the much-lighter (but still cumbersome) Apollo moonsuit.  And again,  the smaller MCP backpack would not have impeded this activity. 

Early difficulties with breathing while wearing a tight garment were solved by incorporating a tidal-volume breathing bag connected to the helmet,  located on the chest,  and contained within a non-elastic restraint jacket.  The remaining difficulty is only don/doff time,  because of the tightness.

Figure 5 – MCP Suppleness Allows Performance of Tasks Impossible in Full Pressure Suits

In Dr. Webb’s design,  there are elastic compression gloves and booties,  so no body parts are left uncompressed.  If you compare these gloves to the full pressure suit gloves in either Figure 2 or Figure 1 above,  you can see at a glance these are far thinner and far more supple. 

The elastic leotard MCP suit is not a single one-piece garment.  You put it on in many separate pieces and layers.  In particular,  you can don and doff the gloves without disturbing the suit compression on the rest of the body.  There is no risk of losing breathing gas pressure,  as there is none anywhere in the suit,  except the helmet and breathing bag. 

Given the 30 minute interval before swelling starts in a vacuum-exposed hand,  this presents the possibility of doing very fine tasks completely bare-handed in space,  on a short-term basis.  The only other requirement to do this is workpiece temperatures that will not cause thermal injury to the bare hand,  and that has nothing to do with the suit design.   

Webb’s final demonstration test is shown in Figure 6,  where the same test subject is pedaling a bicycle ergonometer in a vacuum chamber for about half an hour.  The simulated altitude was 87,000 feet,  far above the known “vacuum deathpoint” without some kind of pressure suit.  If there were a problem with this design,  it would have shown up in that test.  The subject was breathing via a “hookah” rig as in the mobility tests,  but was wearing the backpack as a check on mobility while working hard.  Suit plus helmet plus backpack was 85 pounds.  Adding hiking boots,  heavy leather or insulated gloves,  and insulated white coveralls might add 5-15 more pounds.  That’s a very supple 90-100-pound spacesuit!!

 Figure 6 – Final Test of “Elastic Leotard” ca. 1968 in Vacuum Chamber at 87,000 feet for Half an Hour

This work by Dr. Webb on the elastic leotard MCP suit was partly funded by NASA,  so they knew by 1968-1970 that this kind of suit would work,  and that it offered some very attractive characteristics.  But NASA has never seriously followed up on this development,  not back then,  nor ever since.  And yet,  this is the kind of suit we really need for long term activities on the surfaces of other worlds,  such as the moon or Mars.  Dr. Webb tried over the years to get private funding without success,  and has now died. 

NASA has in recent years provided grant monies to Dr. Dava Newman at MIT to continue work on a variation of the elastic leotard MCP suit.  This is academic research at relatively small funding levels,  not a major engineering development effort.  Dr. Newman’s variant looks at fewer layers of more-tailored elastic properties,  something not available in Dr. Webb’s day.  Her version is still quite a supple-looking “skinsuit”,  shown in Figure 7. 

Dr. Newman has since been hired to work directly at NASA.  Yet,  there is still no major development effort going on for MCP spacesuits.  Insiders tell me the astronaut office is afraid of MCP because they have been erroneously told that skin exposure to vacuum is fatal.  There’s simply no excuse for that,  given Dr. Webb’s experimental success almost 5 decades ago. 

Running the Numbers on Suit Pressures

I looked at a sea level-equivalent design,  and a design equivalent to 10-15,000 feet,  as bounds on what we might really do for spacesuits.  This applies to either type (full pressure or MCP).  There has to be a little leakage margin for the suit or the breathing system.  You want the leaked-down pressures to still be adequate enough to get back inside without help. 

I based my calculations on wet in-lung partial pressure of oxygen as the criterion,  as discussed above.  I used a spreadsheet to calculate the dry air pressures,  and the displaced in-lung wet pressures for air as a function of altitude on a US 1962 standard day.  Then I looked at pure oxygen at atmospheric pressures as a function of altitude,  and did the wet in-lung displacement on those.  The image of that spreadsheet is given as Figure 8.  At the bottom of the image,  I have converted the design point data into a variety of units of measure for the reader’s convenience. 

For the low-pressure suit design,  I looked at 10 to 14,000 feet air,  highlighted green in the spreadsheet.  There’s a yellow highlight on the 15,000 feet conditions that I used for the leaked-down condition.  I settled on a 12,000 foot design.  It’s pure oxygen counterpart is also highlighted green,  at about 40,500 feet.  The corresponding leakdown is about 42,000 feet.  The wet in-lung oxygen partial pressures for this design are 0.120 atm nominal and 0.107 atm leaked-down,  for a 12% margin. 

For the sea level design,  the corresponding oxygen altitude is 33,000 feet,  with 35,000 feet for its leak-down point.  The corresponding wet in-lung oxygen partial pressures are 0.197 atm nominal and 0.174 atm leaked-down,  for a 13% margin.

 Figure 8 – Spreadsheet Image of Pressures vs Altitude for Suit Designs

Looked at the more usual way,  the “low pressure” suit has a nominal suit pressure of 0.182 atm (2.67 psia),  and can safely leak down to 0.169 atm (2.48 psia).  The “sea level oxygen” suit has a suit pressure of 0.259 atm (3.81 psia),  and can safely leak down to 0.236 atm (3.47 psia).  They are both pure oxygen suits,  requiring dessicant,  carbon dioxide absorbent,  and makeup oxygen.  The margins look different using those numbers,  at 7.7% low-P and 9.7% high-P.  But,  comparing wet in-lung partial pressure of oxygen is the more proper measure,  and the more proper basis for calculating leak-down margins.  So that is the way I did it,  not the usual way. 

Running the Numbers on Habitation Atmospheres

The minimum habitation air pressure obtains when you set its wet in-lung oxygen partial pressure equal to that in the suit.  In other words,  you let the suit drive the habitation atmosphere selection.  You can always set it higher,  but you should not set it lower than suit oxygenation.  Doing this calculation as a function of design suit pressures,  across a range of them,  allows you to see the trends in what is important and what is not.  You also do it for a range of oxygen concentrations (volume percentages) in the habitation,  as the parameter on a parametric plot with multiple curves. 

There are two questions to investigate:  what effects (if any) suit pressure selection might have upon habitat pressure,  and also upon the pre-breathe time requirements.    Again,  I did this in a spreadsheet,  images from which are given in Figure 9.     

The illustrated sequence of calculations is simple and straightforward.  Start with the suit pressure,  which is pure dry oxygen.  Do the water vapor displacement subtraction to determine the suit wet in-lung oxygen partial pressure.  Make that value the habitation wet in-lung partial pressure of oxygen.  Use the volume percentage oxygen to figure the wet in-lung partial pressure of nitrogen,  then sum the gases to obtain the wet in-lung partial pressure of dry air.  Then add back in the partial pressure of water vapor to determine the habitation atmosphere total pressure before any vapor displacement occurs.  

 Figure 9 – Spreadsheet Images for Habitation Atmospheres Driven to Match Suit Design Pressure

I did this for the normal Earthly air oxygen percentage of 20.94%,  for the max allowable percentage acceptable from a fire risk standpoint (30%),  and finally an even higher oxygen percentage that meets the “no pre-breathe time” rule of thumb.  That last value is just about 41%.  This data can also be plotted in the same basic format to visualize the true nature of the pre-breathe trends. 

I plotted habitation atmosphere pressures versus suit pressures in Figure 10,  parametric on oxygen percentages.  For the highest suit pressure and lowest oxygen percentage,  the minimum required atmosphere pressure can be right at sea level standard pressure,  the rest are reduced-pressure. 

I plotted the ratio of habitation nitrogen partial pressure to suit pressure (the pre-breathe factor) versus suit pressure in Figure 11,  again parametric on oxygen percentages.  Those are relatively less sensitive to suit pressure,  but more sensitive to habitation oxygen percentage:  richer oxygen is closer to feasibility for no pre-breathe time,  and the stronger effect of the two. 

You can eliminate pre-breathe time (at any feasible suit pressure) by using just about 41% oxygen,  unacceptable from a fire hazard standpoint.  Otherwise,  use the greatest oxygen percentage (30%) that you safely can,  and also use the lowest credible suit pressure (a weaker effect,  but still significant) to achieve the minimum required pre-breathe time. 

Figure 10 – Effects of Suit Design Pressure on Habitation Pressure

 Figure 11 – Effects of Suit Design Pressure on Pre-Breathe Time Requirements

Figured at the nominal suit pressures for the “sea level oxygen” and low pressure designs discussed above,  the corresponding habitat atmospheres are described (and converted to a variety of units of measure) in the data of Figure 12.  Again,  this is a spreadsheet image.  

Figure 12 – Results for Preferred Suit Designs and Oxygen Percentages

I do not have a way to calculate the actual pre-breathe time requirement from the pre-breathe factor,  something needed when that factor exceeds about 1.2.  But,  the larger the factor,  the longer the time,  that much is certain.  So there really is some benefit in terms of pre-breathe time to using the lowest credible suit pressures. 

Checking the Upper Limit

There is one final thing to check during pre-breathe activities:  upper limits on the pressure of the pure oxygen.  With no more than 1 atm of habitation pressure,  this is not a problem.  The upper limit for pure oxygen exposure is known to be 1 atm from deep-sea diving.  Pure oxygen exposure becomes fatal at 2 atm,  although this does take several minutes to occur.  The usual first symptom is convulsions. 

Conclusions

#1. Habitations should probably use a two-gas atmosphere that is oxygen-enriched (to the fire safety limit),  basically an oxygen-enriched synthetic air:  30% by volume oxygen and 70% nitrogen.  That is a simple and easy thing to do. 

#2.  The minimum habitation atmospheric pressure depends upon the selected suit design pressure,  ranging from near 0.462 atm (6.8 psia) for the low-pressure designs,  to 0.720 atm (10.6 psia) for the higher-pressure designs,  all when using the 30% oxygen composition.

#3. The range of credible suit pressures extends from 0.182 atm (2.67 psia) to 0.259 atm (3.81 psia). 

#4. Using the lower suit pressure design decreases required pre-breathe time,  but not to zero. 

#5. The suit pressure designs and habitation atmospheres recommended here apply to either full-pressure suits or MCP suits. 

#6.  Far better mobility in a much lighter and more versatile suit design can be achieved using MCP;  so these suits need to developed into a routinely-reliable form as soon as possible! 

#7.  Raising the habitation pressure above minimum increases pre-breathe time required somewhat.  

Wimpy Gets His (no comment needed)

Astronaut Facing Drowning Points Out Need for Better Space Suit

Note updates 1-29-16 in red below.

Astronauts Tim Peake and Tim Kopra were forced to cut short an EVA due to water leaking into Kopra’s helmet.  This is the very same suit worn by astronaut Parmitano in 2013,  who nearly drowned from a water leak into the helmet.  That suit was extensively refurbished after the 2013 incident,  but clearly there is still a risk associated with its water cooling system.

So,  do all spacesuits need water cooling systems?  No.  The fundamental job is providing a way for you to breathe,  and surprisingly enough,  that does not necessarily mean protecting you from exposure to vacuum.

As long as your heart is beating and your blood pressure hasn’t zeroed,  exposure to vacuum is not fatal and your blood does not boil.  Nothing “explodes” either.  Nor do you instantly freeze or fry,  something that takes longer than anoxia death in vacuum.  The various science fiction shows have lied to you. 

You will start to die within about 2 minutes or so of whole-body exposure to vacuum,  because of nothing more than anoxia,  since oxygen at zero pressure will not diffuse across your lung membranes into your blood. 

In point of fact,  the reverse diffusion of oxygen from your blood to the environment in vacuum is quite enhanced over what we normally experience down here on the surface of the Earth.  So anoxia sets-in quicker upon exposure to vacuum “out there”,  than it does by gross strangulation down here (usually about 4 minutes,  but it can take twice that long,  depending upon your initial blood oxygen levels). 

In experiments and accidents,  people and animals have survived whole-body exposure to vacuum for up to about 2 minutes.  And that’s a fact,  Jack!  This has been known since the 1960’s. 

What’s minimally required to survive in space is an oxygen supply at sufficient pressure to cause adequate diffusion of oxygen across the lung membranes into the blood.  Nothing more than that.  For most folks,  this is in the neighborhood of 2-3 psi pressure of pure oxygen,  or 2-3 psi “partial pressure” of oxygen in a more complicated atmosphere. 

Sea level air has just about 3 psi partial pressure of oxygen,  while air at 10,000 feet elevations has about 2.1 psi.  Some folks are adapted to 15,000,  even 20,000 foot elevations.   That last is about 1.4 psi partial pressure of oxygen.  That’s about the utter minimum for survivable breathing gas pressure,  even if pure oxygen.  But it is based on actual people living active lives at such conditions.

The most immediate idea that comes to mind is just to breathe oxygen at 2 to 3 psi pressure,  with a mask sealed tightly to your face.  This is called "pressure breathing".  
  

There is an immediate danger with "pressure breathing":  if oxygen pressure in the lungs exceeds about 2 psi without counterbalancing pressure within the body,  the lung tissues rupture in an event called "pneumo-thorax".  This is fatal and irreversible and immediate,  you drown in your own blood.  It is a well known risk among scuba divers.

There is a another complication that requires time:  counter-pressure must be exerted upon the body that is more-or-less equal to the breathing gas pressure,  or else those breathing gases will diffuse out of the blood into the spaces between cells in the body,  causing swelling,  disability,  even death.  We have known that since the late 1940’s.

It takes about 30 minutes for significant swelling to happen to a vacuum-exposed small body part like a hand or foot.  It happens much quicker (5-10 minutes) if the whole body is uncompressed while breathing oxygen at pressure.  We learned these figures by hard experience,  since the late 1940’s.  They are accurate. 

There is also a mitigating factor:  the body “does not care one whit” how this counterbalancing pressure is applied!  It can be the pressure of the gas within the current modern space pressure suit,  or it can be a mechanical “squeeze” exerted by other means,  as long as it is applied whole-body.  Pressure is pressure,  no matter how it is applied! 

Our cells are essentially little water balloons:  the pressure in them,  and between them,  goes up whether we put them inside a container at some gas pressure,  or if we simply grab them and physically squeeze them (like a water balloon) in our hands.  Doesn’t matter,  as long as it gets done.

Modern space suits are what we call “full pressure suits”,  which means they are literally gas-tight balloons whose internal gas pressure is the compression the body needs to counterbalance the breathing gas pressure.  These suits isolate you chemically and thermally from your environment;  one layer is quite literally a gas-impermeable rubber balloon.  

It is difficult at best to expel from such a suit the heat your body produces,  especially if you are active.  Your breath and your sweat fill your suit (and your helmet) with moisture,  thus fogging your visor.  There is also carbon dioxide to absorb.  We have fully understood this since the 1950’s at the very latest.  Our first efforts date to the 1930’s. 

The heat problem requires water-cooled underwear to carry your body heat to your backpack,  where some sort of “air conditioner” equipment expels that heat to space.  Likewise,  your breathing gas requires considerable regeneratable dessicant to get rid of the moisture load from your breath,  and more especially,  your body sweat (the larger of the two sources).    The carbon dioxide absorbent also needs to be regeneratable. 

Your makeup oxygen supply is not lightweight,  all by itself,  although makeup from a flask of liquid oxygen is the most efficient.  The combination of all this plus adequate insulation against hot and cold makes your suit,  and your life support backpack,  quite heavy.  It’s been like that since the 200+ pound Apollo moonsuit,  all through the space shuttle program (300+ pounds),  and is still like that on the international space station (ISS) today (close to 400 pounds). 

But,  what if you relied on mechanical-physical compression by a tight garment instead?  This was exactly how the early “partial pressure” suits worked,  and they worked quite well,  actually,  for 10-minute bailouts,  beginning in the late 1940’s.  Hands and feet were uncompressed,  and compression over the limbs and body was rather uneven,  but it worked for 10 minutes anyway. 

Such a compression garment need not hold gas pressure at all,  it can be entirely porous!  You can sweat right through it into vacuum,  which is actually more efficient cooling than here on Earth,  because of inherent moisture vaporization into vacuum.  So you need no mechanical cooling system at all,  and your moisture load is only breath,  not breath-plus-sweat.  Your life support backpack reduces to just the makeup oxygen,  plus minimal dessicant,  and the same carbon dioxide absorbent. 

You still need protection against hot and cold,  but this can be an over-garment.  It simply need not be part of your compression garment!  Think vacuum-protective underwear,  overlain by whatever insulation,  at whatever level you need,  for the job at hand. 

That gives you the freedom to dress in layers,  just like down here on Earth!  In point of fact,  you can use ordinary Earth garments for this insulation function.  Coveralls,  aprons,  coats,  pants,  shoes,  and gloves,  all exactly the same as we wear down here. 

Believe it or not,  this notion of vacuum-protective underwear (known as “mechanical counter-pressure” or “MCP”) was tested and somewhat-developed in the late 1960’s,  quite successfully,  by Dr. Paul Webb.  The compression garment,  breathing helmet,  and oxygen backpack that he tested totaled 85 pounds. In its final form,  the difficulty of breathing while wearing a very tight garment was eased by incorporating a breathing tidal-volume bag on the chest within a non-elastic restraining jacket,  instead of garment compression.

Add 5-15 lb of insulating garments,  gloves,  and boots,  and you are talking about a spacesuit that weighs around 100 pounds,  not the 300-400 pounds currently in use!  Plus,  it is a whole lot more dexterous:  you can bend sharply over,  climb ladders,  and crawl into small spaces,  something not at all possible with a “normal” modern spacesuit. If you fall over in a 400 pound full pressure suit,  it is likely you cannot get up on your feet again very effectively.  If there is no one close by,  you may lay there till you die.  That doesn't happen in a supple,  100-pound MCP suit.

This stuff worked long ago:  I have seen the 1968-vintage video of Dr. Webb’s test subject in a vacuum tank,  pedaling a bicycle ergonometer for half an hour,  and wearing nothing but 6-7 layers of tight pantyhose material and a breathing helmet.  The simulated altitude was 87,000 feet,  where even a pure oxygen atmosphere would still only be 0.293 psia.  If there were a problem with this approach,  it would have shown up in that half an hour:  no problems showed up! 

This test effort was partially-funded by NASA:  they have known that this alternative works for almost half a century.  Irrational attitudes and monied interests,  not actual facts,  prevent its application today.  Small amounts of grant money to Dr. Dava Newman at MIT have supported some work on this “MCP” suit concept,  but nothing at any of NASA’s favored spacesuit contractors.  Dr. Newman has since been hired by NASA,  but there is still no development effort for an MCP suit.  

Here's one more advantage of MCP over a standard full pressure suit.  If you puncture a full pressure suit,  and you cannot get inside before it deflates,  you are dead.  If you puncture an MCP suit,  nothing happens,  because the garment does not contain any gas under pressure at all.  If the hole is smaller than about 0.1 inch in size,  you may ignore it completely,  and just sew it up later.  If it's a bigger tear,  a tight wrap of duct tape will protect the exposed skin from localized vacuum damage until you can go inside and make repairs.  

This MCP suit is the dexterous,  easily-launderable spacesuit we have always dreamed of!  There is simply no excuse not to do this!  So what if it takes some time and effort to don such tight layers?  Further,  if you figure out some scheme to relax and apply the fabric tension “at will”,  even that objection goes away. 

And,  with MCP,  there is zero risk of drowning an astronaut,  because there is no water-cooled underwear!  Astronaut Kopra on the ISS is just the latest to face this lethal risk.  

Related articles on this site:

Date           title

2-15-16    Suits and Atmospheres for Space (the latest!!)

1-15-16   Astronaut Facing Drowning Points Out Need for Better Suit

11-17-14    Space Suit and Habitat Atmospheres

2-11-14      On-Orbit Repair and Assembly Facility

                  

1-21-11     Fundamental Design Criteria for Alternative Space Suit Approaches

Edits/updates:

1-16-16 two new lead-in paragraphs,  plus rewording of final paragraph,  plus new paragraph 9 about pneumo-thorax.

1-29-16  added information in multiple locations,  red text.

Facts Must Trump Politics

Update 8-4-16:

There are some related articles elsewhere on this site,  one of which seems to be modestly popular with readers (the 7-29-16 article).  Another one is just a funny (the 4-24-16 article).  All share the search keyword “idiocy in politics”.  Here’s the list:

8-4-16….Evaluation of Choices for 2016

7-29-16…..Stuff You Normally Do Not Think About

6-5-16…….Trump?  NO!!

4-24-16….Better Choices in November

12-21-15..Facts Must Trump Politics  (this one)

Update 7-27-16:  Today Trump publicly appealed to (state-supported) Russian hackers to uncover the missing Clinton state department emails.  Considering the bad state of affairs between the US and Russia,  due largely to Putin's ambitions for a new Russian empire,  this is borderline treason on Trump's part.  

"Aid and comfort to the enemy" with 6+ witnesses,  per the definition.  Putin wants Trump to win and hates Clinton.  He is trying to sway our election for his own purposes by releasing hacked Clinton files.  I really do not like that.  And I really hate the prospect of a president the Russians can influence so easily to their own ends.  

Update 6-12-16:  It's Clinton vs Trump for sure.  I absolutely do not want loose-cannon Trump!  

The real question now is whether Clinton can overcome her trust issues well enough to pull in Sanders voters and beat Trump,  come November.  And,  there is the Elizabeth Warren factor.  I submit that both Warren and Sanders be made part of Clinton's proposed government for the Nov '16 ticket.  

I would recommend that Sanders be Clinton's VP,  and Warren be made some high cabinet post.  That would re-energize all the Sanders voters,  so that they would turn out and help greatly to defeat Trump.  Plus,  having Sanders in the White House as VP would put the brakes on Clinton's "shyster lawyer" attitude problem,  that causes all the negative trust issues she brings.  Plus,  having Warren in the cabinet helps pull in more yet of the newly-rising "left" in the Democratic party.  It's not about being totally-centrist anymore.  

I think it more important that Sanders be VP and Warren a Cabinet member,  than the other way around.  I think this would re-unify the Democrats better,  and contribute far more toward defeating Trump in November.  The shirt-tail effect says that Democrats could regain control of the Senate and perhaps the House,  in November,  if this is a convincing-enough win of the White House.  

As for "shyster lawyer" attitude problems with Clinton,  these summarize succinctly as (1) "rules are for other people",  and (2) "I'm only sorry I got caught".  She really needs somebody to offset these liabilities.  Sanders could do that better than Warren.

The matter of fact or fiction should be an objective decision.  Politics (or any other predilection) has nothing to do with whether something is factual or not.  This is something far too often ignored by politicians and appointed officials.   It is ignored by too many voters,  as well. 

Finger on the Nuclear Button

Anybody with their finger on the nuclear trigger button needs to base their decisions on real,  verifiable facts.  If they have a predilection for fictions instead of fact,  they are not qualified to hold that position.  Too much is stake to allow “convenient lies”,  or election-campaign “sound bites”,  or party agenda to substitute for rational and informed thought. 

Immigration

Anybody with decision-making authority about immigration needs to base their decisions on real,  verifiable facts.   It is simply too easy to discriminate arbitrarily if these decisions are made based on political fictions.   This evil usually takes the form of a scapegoat group to be blamed for all ills,  which is really how you recognize when you are being lied to.   The last notable example was Adolf Hitler,  who blamed Jews for everything wrong in Germany after World War 1.  And then he tried to kill them all.   And we all know how well that episode turned out. 

Safety Net Programs

Anybody making decisions about the social safety nets we choose to employ (such as Social Security and Medicare) needs to make those decisions upon verifiable facts.  To do otherwise is egregious discrimination against those who happen not to be so very wealthy.   Such discrimination is wrong,  no matter what form it takes.

Regulations on the Economy

Anyone making decisions about the regulations upon our economy needs to base their decisions upon verifiable fact,  including the historically-demonstrated fact that completely-unregulated capitalism has always degenerated into piracy and economic slavery.  It’s simply not a fair market if there are no rules to ensure fair play. 

Regulated to avoid these abuses,  capitalism then takes its rightful place as the most powerful engine of creation ever devised by man.  These are the “two-sides-of-the-same-coin” facts that should never be “trumped” by political ideologies.  From any party,  or any sub-group.

Climate Change

Anybody making decisions about what to do in response to climate change needs to base their decisions upon verifiable facts,  including the demonstrated reality of climate change,  regardless of who or what might be causing it.  Much more than just this year’s bottom lines for some giant corporations is involved with this issue. 

In General

Similar considerations apply to any issue one cares to raise.   Facts are key,  and what is fact is not a political decision. 

My message is this:  pay attention to fact-checking when political campaigns go on.  You will have to take off your political blinders and propaganda lenses to do this effectively.  Ditch the political belief systems.  Do not believe the propaganda.  Look only at what actually “is”.  Candidates who play fast and loose with facts are simply not qualified to make decisions about your lives.   Do not vote for them.

So few elected (or appointed) officials qualify today as people who deal in real facts.  That is why I have generally not voted “for” anyone in decades.  I generally vote instead only for the lesser of the evils available,  and evil they usually are,  because of the money that buys elections.  The common man cannot afford to run for office in our USA.  That has been true for about 200 years now,  and it desperately needs to be changed. 

If in doubt,  I vote “no” or “against”.  That policy has served me well.  

Update:  Specifics for Election Year 2016

Donald J. Trump – NO!!!!  Here’s why:  complete denial of facts on every issue listed above,  which means he is completely unqualified to be making decisions affecting the entire country.  His shifting and extreme positions are designed to create buzz,  not solutions.  Putin likes the idea of President Trump,  because it would be easy to push a publicity-hound clown around,  and with him,  the entire country.   Trump is unstable and extremist enough that I absolutely do not want his finger on the nuclear button!

Update 2-25-16:  nothing but a power-hungry demagogue who tells lies about others,  provides a group to blame for our troubles,  provides platitudes-not-plans when he speaks;  as a result,  he reminds me of no one so much as Adolf Hitler running for office in early 1930's Germany.   We do NOT meed to repeat that history!  

Update 3-16-16:  the violence of Trump supporters suppressing opposition at his rallies is chillingly reminiscent of Hitler and his SA "brown shirts" at rallies in Germany in the late 1920's and early 1930's,  and also of Mussolini's fascisti "black shirts" in the 1920's.  

Ted Cruz – NO!!!!  Here’s why:  the not-Trump choice for the GOP is really just a Trump “mini-me”.  He has exactly the same problems with denial of facts and with extremist nonsense to create buzz,  not solutions.  Therefore,  he is similarly not qualified to be making decisions for the entire country.  He’s a tea party favorite (infamous for their “my way or the highway” approach to things that prevents effective governance),  and would govern for party advantage at the expense of the people (a real evil bordering upon treason during wartime).   He has already demonstrated this by orchestrating the government shutdown.  He is far too extremist to have his finger on the nuclear button. 

Update 2-25-16:  nothing but a power-hungry demagogue who tells lies about others,  provides a group to blame for our troubles,  provides platitudes-not-plans when he speaks;  otherwise identical to Trump in every other way,  which is why I call him a Trump "mini-me".  The same comparison to 1930-vintage Hitler applies.  Just as with Trump,  we do NOT need to repeat that history!

Marco Rubio – He might be acceptable as long he does not have a party majority in both houses of Congress to support him.  His approaches to many issues seem reasoned and reasonable.  But he’s awfully young:  I’d like to see him serve another term in the Senate before attempting the Presidency.   That is the problem we already just had with Obama (who also should have gained more experience in the Senate before becoming President).   I don’t know enough about him to trust that he will govern for the benefit of all,  and not just govern for party advantage at the expense of the people,  which is why I don’t want his party in control of both houses if he were President. 

Update 3-16-16:  it would appear that other folks noticed the same young/inexperienced factor that I called out in the preceding paragraph.  He did not win his home state,  and pulled out.  

Jeb Bush – Seems to be similar in many ways to Rubio,  plus he has real experience at governing that Rubio does not have.  I know enough about him to think that he would try to govern for the benefit of all,  and not just for party advantage,  but only so long as he surrounds himself with a diversity of advisors.  His brother (Bush 43) already made that mistake:  surrounded by nothing but neocons who wanted to wage war for oil,  that’s what “W” did.  Jeb is not “W”,  but the same risk is still there.  So I’d rather not see him supported by a party majority in both houses of Congress,  should he be elected.  Update 2-25-16:  now out of the running unless drafted at the convention.  

Chris Christie – This one may be the best the Republicans have to offer,  by far.  He has experience governing,  he has the backbone to be forceful in foreign affairs,  and he has the wisdom to set aside party considerations and govern for the benefit of all (demonstrated during Hurricane Sandy).  I suspect he would make an acceptable president regardless of who controls Congress.   He might even be a good one.  I do hope the Republicans avoid the Trump vs “not-Trump” Cruz choice at their convention,  by drafting Christie.  Update 2-25-16:  now out of the running unless drafted at the convention.  Update 2-29-16:  has backed Trump,  which I find disappointing (but not at all surprising,  after how his own party has treated him,  following the Hurricane Sandy ordeal).  

Update 3-16-16:  The only remaining non-extremist candidate among the Republicans is Kasich of Ohio.  I hope his win in Ohio forces the GOP to a brokered convention fight and results in an acceptable candidate in November.  Otherwise,  it doesn't matter who the Democrats run,  whoever it is gets my vote to avoid a Hitleresque extremist takeover of the White House.  We are in danger!

Hillary Clinton – She certainly has the experience in governance,  and she certainly has the backbone to deal with foreign affairs.  But she is demonstrably afflicted with a bad case of “shyster-lawyer” attitude:  (1) a predilection for lying,  and (2) a disregard for the rules.  This shows up as low rating for trust in the polls.  She was the brains and ambition behind Bill,  but does not have Bill’s grasp of doing right by the people (a sort of “noblesse oblige”).  I think she would not go off “half-cocked” on the nuclear button.  She might be acceptable as President,  but the shyster-lawyer effect will cause her to have scandal after scandal,  just as it always has since Bill was President.  So there are very definite and serious pluses and minuses with her. 

Bernie Sanders – I don’t yet know a lot about him.  He seems quite personable and reasonable,  just to hear him talk.  A self-described “democratic socialist”,  I’m not at all sure he is as far-left as he seems to many.  He’s probably only “left-center” for the New England region he comes from.  He does have experience in government,  and is demonstrably independent-of-party enough to trust that he would try to govern for the benefit of all of us.  Might actually be an acceptable President.  I think he would be trustable with the nuclear button. 

Update 2-25-16:  the more I hear him speak,  the better he sounds. I just wish he had not tarred himself with the self-description "socialist democrat".  Nowhere near as crazy as Trump or Cruz.  Does not carry all the scandal baggage that Hillary Clinton brings.  

Republican Agenda – as a broad-brush generalization:  tax breaks that almost exclusively favor the rich,  justified by “trickle-down economics” (something tried since Reagan and it has never,  ever worked).  These tax breaks are a reward for campaign contributions from those same rich entities.  The Republicans talk a lot about reducing the size and expense of government,  but never actually do it.  They do tend to be stronger and more forceful as regards foreign affairs,  although this sometimes gets us into deep trouble (example:  recent neocon wars for oil in the middle east under Bush 43). 

Problem:  the Republican party is tearing itself apart without actually splitting.  The extremist right wing coalition (of tea party political extremists and extremist Christians) has the party hog-tied into a turn to the extreme right,  without actually being a majority within the party.  If the split were actually to happen,  neither group would have the following to be a factor in national politics,  which is precisely why they have not yet split.  Eventually,  they will,  or else the Republicans will eventually fade from national significance.  Most Americans have a distaste for extremism. 

Most of their social agenda (top issues:  overturning abortion and Obamacare) I vehemently disagree with:  I think Roe vs Wade better represents the majority of Americans,  and I have seen no concrete proposals to replace Obamacare.  They do support Second Amendment gun rights,  which I agree with. 

Update 2-25-16:  I can certainly see the influence that the tea party/ extremist fundamentalist Christian base is having:  all the GOP candidates running locally here in central Texas are going out of their way to out-Trump Trump.  All I see in their ad campaigns is "blame the illegal immigrants for everything" nonsense,  coupled with defund Planned Parenthood and repeal Roe vs Wade nonsense.  Sounds almost exactly like 1932 Germany.  

Democrat Agenda – I pretty much agree with their social agenda,  excepting increased gun control,  which I utterly abhor.  The party tends to adopt measures immediately,  with the promise to figure out how to fund it later,  which they never do (neither do the Republicans).  They do tend to believe in a larger,  more-activist government,  and the more left-leaning members are more willing to experiment with social engineering,  something I don’t think wise.  (Actually,  the far-right Republicans also want to experiment with social engineering,  just different in the details,  but just as unwise.) 

Update 2-25-16:  the Democrats are very definitely the lesser of two evils,  pretty much at all levels from local to national.  I hate to say that,  but I will NOT vote for a bunch of Hitler clones.  

My own take on this is mixed:  there are things that only government can do,  and there are things that are better-supplied by our free market business communities.  Wisdom lies in knowing which is which,  a decision that should be objective and not political.  Government exists to provide those necessary things that business either cannot or will not supply.  Both parties have very serious failings regarding this.  The Democrats create more government offices and programs,  but (just like the Republicans) never act to eliminate them,  once they are no longer useful. 

The Democrats are stereotyped as “soft” on foreign affairs,  although FDR,  Harry Truman,  JFK,  LBJ,  and Barack Obama are all “exceptions”,  in my opinion.   (I include Obama because he has killed more people with drone attacks than George W. Bush ever even thought about.)  I really think this is more determined by individual personalities than it is by any sort of party agenda. 

I don’t like the way the Democrats (under LBJ) took the social security trust fund and made it part of the federal government general fund.  This is in large part why the social security program is now perceived as going broke.  This was done for political expedience,  and is only one example (among many) of why I think prioritizing party advantage above the good of all the people is tantamount to treason.

My hopes –

I am not classifiable as either Republican or Democrat.  I am a “dyed-in-the-wool” independent.  I am an American,  first and foremost.  You might as well know that,  if you have not yet guessed. 

I hope the Democrats draft Joe Biden at their convention as the “not-Hillary” candidate who could actually win the election.  He is a decent,  thoughtful man,  with lots of direct relevant experience in government.  He could be a good President,  perhaps even a great one,  occasional “foot-in-mouth disease” notwithstanding.  He can be trusted with the nuclear button.  I think he can be trusted to prioritize serving all the people above party advantage.  Update 3-3-16:  if they drafted Sanders,  I'd be OK with that.  

I hope the Republicans draft Chris Christie at their convention as the (1) not-Trump,  and (2) not Trump‘s “mini-me” (meaning Cruz) candidate.  Christie could actually win the election.  As described above,  I think he could be a good President.  Essentially,  these are the same reasons that underlie my opinion of Biden.  Update 3-3-16:  unfortunately,  he has become a symbol of scorn as "Trump's hostage".  I was disappointed in him for endorsing Trump.  His political credibility has pretty much now zeroed because of that.  

I don’t know anything about any of the other candidates not named above.  Accordingly,  my rule-of-thumb would be vote “against”.  I’m sorry if that offends,  but my policy of voting “no” or “against” when I don’t know,  has served me well for a very long time now. 

Best-case scenario:  the election is Biden versus Christie.  Either could serve well,  regardless of who controls the houses of Congress.  I would hope that both men have the wisdom to include the other man as a major figure in his government,  whichever man wins.  Nothing could be more healing of the division among Americans,  both symbolically,  and in a very real-and-practical sense. 

Worst-case scenario:  the election is Trump versus Hillary.  I’d have to vote for Hillary as the lesser of two considerable evils.  I think I can trust her finger on the nuclear button.  Trump,  I do not trust at all,  with the nuclear button. 

Probable Scenario:  Trump (high) or Cruz (low) versus Hillary Clinton.  Frankly,  I'd vote against either Trump or Cruz no matter who the Democrats run!  We simply cannot afford to have the White House taken over by an extremist,  with his finger on the nuclear button.  I hope that Clinton has the wisdom to include Sanders in her proposed government.  Especially if he was her running mate,  I think the Dems would stomp a GOP-extremist in November,  thus saving us from a clone of the Third Reich right here in America.  

Update 2-9-16:  I see no reason to change any of these evaluations.  

Update 2-25-16:  see dated red text inserted above,  in multiple locations.  

Update 2-29-16:  see dated blue text inserted above,  in one location.

Update 3-3-16:  see purple text inserted two places above.  

Update 3-16-16:  see orange text inserted four places above.

Update 6-8-16:  It will be Clinton vs Trump.  Trump is simply unacceptable,  to almost anyone of  remotely-decent common sense,  including an awful lot of Republicans.  Clinton,  in spite of her historic low approval ratings,  is definitely the lesser of two evils.  

The Democrats could ensure that they win by a landslide in November,  if they run Sanders as Clinton's VP candidate.  He would tend to keep her more honest if he were a major part of her government.  A lot of people have a "gut feel" that would agree.  And he would be there to represent the wishes of those who supported him.  

It's a winning ticket (Clinton + Sanders vs Trump + whoever).  I hope the Democrats are wise enough to recognize that during their convention (Update 8-13-16 -- they were not,  but they were wise enough to include a lot of Sanders' issues as their platform).