NASA funds grants to companies working on healthcare products
1–9 of 9 posts
Re: NASA funds grants to companies working on healthcare products
#2Wasn't there a program in the previous admin where NASA solved YOUR problems?
Re: NASA funds grants to companies working on healthcare products
#3I'll give this one to NASA for free: start using artificial gravity instead of watching how horrible micro-gravity is to each new group of astronauts.
Re: NASA funds grants to companies working on healthcare products
#4I like the idea of funding startups but it is a risky business.
It would be interesting if they had programs like DARPA, X-Prize challenges.
I think this method is more efficient and should be leveraged by the rest of the government. It is basically a fixed-bid R&D contract.
Re: NASA funds grants to companies working on healthcare products
#5I'll give this one to NASA for free: start using artificial gravity instead of watching how horrible micro-gravity is to each new group of astronauts.
I'll contribute to your research for a gravity generator. Or to your research into what different amounts of gravity in each body part does. Or in stabilizing a huge and cost-effective rotating structure. (But I really want the gravitiy generator..)
Re: NASA funds grants to companies working on healthcare products
#6I'll give this one to NASA for free: start using artificial gravity instead of watching how horrible micro-gravity is to each new group of astronauts.
I'll contribute to your research for a gravity generator. Or to your research into what different amounts of gravity in each body part does. Or in stabilizing a huge and cost-effective rotating structure. (But I really want the gravitiy generator..)
> Or in stabilizing a huge and cost-effective rotating structure.
So a ring-shaped vehicle that spun at just the right velocity so that the outward centrifugal force would be more-or-less equal to earths' gravity. Is that what you are implying here?
Re: NASA funds grants to companies working on healthcare products
#7Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'll contribute to your research for a gravity generator. Or to your research into what different amounts of gravity in each body part does. Or in stabilizing a huge and cost-effective rotating structure. (But I really want the gravitiy generator..)
> Or in stabilizing a huge and cost-effective rotating structure. So a ring-shaped vehicle that spun at just the right velocity so that the outward centrifugal force would be more-or-less equal to earths' gravity. Is that what you are implying here?
Although this approach is obvious, there are complicating factors. The Coriolis force makes high-RPM centrifugal gravity unpleasant and perhaps dangerous to humans. So, to achieve 1g, structures would need to be very large (224 meters). Nonetheless, this is probably the best approach.
Re: NASA funds grants to companies working on healthcare products
#8Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Or in stabilizing a huge and cost-effective rotating structure. So a ring-shaped vehicle that spun at just the right velocity so that the outward centrifugal force would be more-or-less equal to earths' gravity. Is that what you are implying here?
Although this approach is obvious, there are complicating factors. The Coriolis force makes high-RPM centrifugal gravity unpleasant and perhaps dangerous to humans. So, to achieve 1g, structures would need to be very large (224 meters). Nonetheless, this is probably the best approach. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artificial_gravity#Rotation
Two modules separated by a tether requires much less mass. It makes Coriolis effects hard to notice.
I readily admit they haven't done any of this. The lack of engineering work into making spinning structures is criminal.
Re: NASA funds grants to companies working on healthcare products
#9Earlier quoted context omitted.
Although this approach is obvious, there are complicating factors. The Coriolis force makes high-RPM centrifugal gravity unpleasant and perhaps dangerous to humans. So, to achieve 1g, structures would need to be very large (224 meters). Nonetheless, this is probably the best approach. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artificial_gravity#Rotation
Two modules separated by a tether requires much less mass. It makes Coriolis effects hard to notice. I readily admit they haven't done any of this. The lack of engineering work into making spinning structures is criminal.
In structures with a small radius, the "gravity" differential between your feet and your head is a bigger issue than the Coriolis effect. Large structures using the tether approach produce sufficiently large forces on the tether that it becomes a significant engineering problem. Tether structures also suffer the issue that they are much harder to stop and start than a ring structure. This is important because you do not want the structure spinning whilst you make course adjustments. There are modifications to the design that compensate for this, but they add significant complexity to the design of the ballast.
The ESA have put a lot of thought into this, as have Rosmoscos. I assume NASA have put a fair amount of thought into it as well, but I've nothing to back that up.