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

2. The Architecture of Artificial-Gravity Habitats Theodore W. Hall Future in Space Operations (FISO) Colloquium 17 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 Programmer Architecture and Planning Research Laboratory University of Michigan ’94-’04:Postdoctoral Fellow & Research Officer Department of Architecture Chinese University of Hong Kong ’09-Research Computer Specialist University of Michigan 3D Lab (UM3D) “Expensive Hobby”: Space Architecture Dissertation: “The Architecture of Artificial-Gravity Environments for 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. 7

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

9. Historical Concepts. NASA LaRC & North American, 1962Inflatable concept, 1962 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/R f 19

20. Dropping particles, rotating view: h/R f 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 velocity min. 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 m V=14.0 m/s v= 1.0 m/s x= 3.8 m slope= 4º = 7% grade = 1:15 Apparent slope at min. agreed “comfort” R & V. 37

38. Apparent slope at min. agreed “comfort” R & V. R=67.1 m V=14.0 m/s v=–0.5 m/s x= 0.0 m lean= 4º 38

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

40. A cent = 0.38 g  = 4.0 rpm R=21.2 m V= 8.9 m/s Greater apparent slope at smaller R & V. “BNTR Artificial Gravity Mars Mission.” [Borowski, Dudzinski, Sauls, Minsaas, 2006] 40

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

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

43. Ladder in side wall – not recommended. “2001: A Space Odyssey.” [Kubrick, Clarke, 1968] 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. Module Orientation. Axial Most comfortable: No Coriolis. No apparent slope. No floor curvature. No ladders. No gravity gradient. Least stable? Twists to tangential. 46

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

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

49. Experiments in form and color for orientation. 49

50. Experiments in form and color for orientation. 50

51. Experiments in form and color for orientation. 51

52. Observations. Cost trade-offs: decrease: radius, velocity, mass, energy. increase: research, testing, design review, selectivity, training, acclimitization. 52

53. Observations. The habitat pressure shell does not shield the interior from physics and mechanical dynamics. 53

54. Recommendations. Curve floors that are wide relative to the rotational radius. Reject circular plans with no obvious orientation to the direction of rotation. Use color and pattern to provide visual orientation to distinguish east (fore, prograde) from west (aft, antigrade). 54

55. Recommendations. Avoid multistory designs. Place ladders coplanar to the axis of rotation, perpendicular to the Coriolis acceleration. Provide separate ladders (or two- sided access) for ascending and descending. 55

56. Recommendations. Question all assumptions about gravity. Question everything. 56

57. URLs for SpinCalc and SpinDoctor. http://www.artificial-gravity.com/sw/ SpinCalc/ SpinDoctor/ 57

58. Discussion. 58