This page may be out of date. Submit any pending changes before refreshing this page.
Hide this message.
Quora uses cookies to improve your experience. Read more
Robert Walker
There are some very inexpensive ways of testing human effects of spinning motions and artificial gravity in space. We could probably do our first tethre based experiments, and our first short arm centrifuge experiments in space as well, within a year or two of deciding that this is a priority project.

But as for building such a module - it would be expensive to do the module - depending how it works. But not impossibly so. They actually had an idea to do this, the Nautilus X ISS demo, costed as between $83 million and $143 million at the time (2011) and requiring three years to develop, so if they had started then, it would be in space by now:
File:Nautilus-X ISS demo 1.png

The idea was it would be mainly a sleeping centrifuge, so you get artificial gravity at night. It is just wide enough to fit into it with a spacesuit on - for safety reasons for the early tests of it. It's inflatable and would fit on an Atlas V or Delta IV rocket. It would have, optionally, a food prep and dining area and a partial g toilet facility. See Nautilus-X--Holderman_1-26-11

I think myself it is far too soon to do a big prototype like this. It might even be completely the wrong direction to take - or it may be perfect. Do we need to test humans in horizontal positions and asleep - or do they need to be vertical and exercising for instance? It would be useless for testing humans exercising. Does partial gravity while you are asleep make all the difference between health and bone loss and zero g issues in space - or is it partial gravity while exercising that is important- or while eating? Can you tolerate spin motions more easily while asleep - or while exercising -or while eating even?

We can do much simpler tests for much less cost first.

It is easy to work out what the level of artificial gravity will be. What we don't know is what spin rates and coriolis forces etc humans can tolerate for various activities in space conditions. Very different from the situation on the Earth.

Because we know so little about the effects on human health of artificial gravity or what human spin tolerances are. And any design like that requires you to make dozens of very particular engineering decisions based on assumptions about what is good or not for human health.

Maybe we don't need a big torus like that
  • what if we can manage just fine with a 4 meter diameter centrifuge?
  • Or what if humans simply can't tolerate sleeping in a centrifuge the size of the Nautilus, at any spin rate large enough for useful gravity?
  • Or what if we need gravity 24/7 to stay healthy and continually going back and forth between zero g and full g is worse than zero g?
  • Or what if we need gravity while exercising, and it is of little value in sleep? (The Nautilus centrifuge is designed to be just large enough for an astronaut to crawl into wearing a spacesuit - for initial testing safety, not designed for exercise).
  • Or what if, or what if, ... you can go on with an endless list of questions like that, which nobody can answer yet, at least not definitively.
It doesn't have enough parameters we can vary for a full gravity test facility in space. And is too expensive, surely, for preliminary experiments, given that so far we have never tested artificial gravity in space at all on humans (only on plants and small mammals like rats - where it makes a dramatic difference).

Is this what our first ever such test should be like?  Should we not try something a little simpler first?

Experiments on the ground may seem similar but there are also many differences that may be highly significant.

Here are some of the differences:

  • On the Earth you  always have full Earth gravity operating. Any spinning motion increases that so all artificial gravity experiments on Earth involve hypergravity.
  • Generally have full Earth gravity along the rotation axis for the spin - in space there will be no gravity along the spin axis
  • Can't experiment with true partial gravity. It might be that the optimal gravity level for human health is less than full g. We have no way of finding this out on the Earth.
  • We can't experiment with temporary gravity - i.e. gravity for only part of the day - in space you could get into a centrifuge and experience artificial gravity for just a few minutes (say while using the toilet) or half an hour or so (meal times say, and to help with digesting the meals) or several hours (for exercise and while resting) or eight hours (while asleep). Even if you can only tolerate a few minutes of full g a day, that might be beneficial. We can't test for this on Earth.
  • Gravity gradients differ. On the ground, in any centrifuge experiment, the gradients shade from full gravity to hyper gravity. In space they shade from partial gravity to full gravity
  • Coriolis effect acts in a different direction. It's awkward to walk in straight lines in centrifuges on the ground, or to move your hand horizontally. This would not be an issue in space, because the axis of rotation is above your head. Instead you'd feel the Coriolis effect when you stand up suddenly or sit down suddenly or move your hand vertically.
  • Felt gravity levels depend on the direction you walk - heavier when you walk with the spin, and lighter when you walk against the spin.
  • Spin reversal. In space, the spinning sensation in your ear will reverse direction if you turn your head around (spin reversal). So for instance depending on which direction you are facing compared with the direction of the spin axis, your head tumbles in a forwards vertical tumble, a backwards tumble, a sideways tumble to the left or a sideways tumble to the right, or intermediate tumbles - the direction continually changes. The anterior and posterior canals in the vestibular system in your ears should be able to detect this.

    This effect never happens in the usual experiments on the ground if you keep your head vertical and parallel to the spin axis, though they can happen if you lean your head sideways, or if you turn your head upside down, as you spin, or in experiments with reclining volunteers with head towards the spin axis.
  • The direction of the spinning motion  affects a different part of the ear. On the ground, in the usual experiments, your horizontal canals (in your vestibular system in your ear) get stimulated.  With artificial gravity in space, the spin axis is overhead, rather than to one side. So it's a tumbling sensation and your vertical canals get stimulated (depending on orientation)
  • The otolithic organs (the utricle and saccule) will respond differently in space conditions without the full Earth gravity along the axis. These help us sense linear accelerations. They are implicated in space sicknesss as the body adjusts to different ways of interpreting the sensations from our otoliths. They would surely make a difference to the sensations we feel in artificial gravity.

    Experiments with the Skylab litter chair suggested that we may tolerate back and forth spinning motions more easily in space. And the otoliths were thought to be responsible for this increased tolerance (even though they don't detect spinning motions at all, they are stimulated differently which seems to improve tolerance of spinning motions for some reason)
    Spinning motions in space artificial gravity stimulate the posterior and anterior canals instead of the horizontal canal because the axis of rotation is above your head, and the Utricle and Saccule are stimulated differently as well.


    (for background on structure of the ear and the motion sensitive organs see Otoliths - and the limited data we have from space is based on the Skylab litter chair experiments, discussed in papers such as: The relative roles of the otolith organs and semicircular canals in producing space motion sickness. These experiments were designed to study motion sickness rather than artificial gravity).

Some experimenters at least think it is high time we sent an experimental short arm centrifuge to space. The aim wouldn't be to solve the problems of zero gravity, at least not right away. Just to get the first ever data points from space to validate (or otherwise) the ground based experiments.

The physics of how these could work is well understood. But there have been no tests so far to tell us what gravity levels are needed for health, and for how long. Or whether the gravity should be intermittent, and which activities it is most beneficial for, or if it needs to be 24/7.

Nor do we know what spin rates humans can tolerate, in sleep, while exercising, eating, or otherwise in artificial gravity conditions in zero g, and we can't necessarily apply ground based results directly, as the Skylab litter chair experiments show.

So it is hard to know at present how effective artificial gravity would be for ameliorating health issues, or how well humans would tolerate them, or the best design for human health (level of artificial gravity, radius, spin rate) .

Some researchers in a study at MIT  and another study at MIT found that most people can adapt to spin motions as fast as 30 rpm with training over as few as five sessions of an hour each. Which leads to the question, is such adaptation also possible for artificial gravity spins in space?

In their conclusion they say

"If, as has been suggested by previous flight research, microgravity actually provides an even less nauseating environment for centrifugation, then vestibular problems should certainly no longer remain an excuse that stands in the way of flight-testing an SRC [Short Radius Centrifuge] countermeasure. An orbiting test platform would allow not only definitive answers to the integration of otoliths and canals in the process of vestibular adaptation, but would also provide the first solid data beyond bed rest analogues about the efficiency of AG [Artificial Gravity] against musculoskeletal and cardiovascular losses. Furthermore, only in microgravity does the opportunity arise to examine the physiological effects of partial-g load, those between microgravity and Earth-normal 1-g."

"In order to truly address the operational aspects of short-radius AG, a centrifuge must be made available on orbit. It's time to start truly answering the questions of "how long", "how strong", "how often", and "under what limitations" artificial gravity can be provided by a short radius device.

2002 ESASP.501..151H Page 155

So - that's the idea of a short radius centrifuge. Nautilus X perhaps is, but it's a bit large to really count as "short radius".

I think that any tests at all would be a good starting point. Even if it is just a couple of meters in diameter it would tell us something, our first ever data points on effects of artificial gravity in space on humans.

There's also Joe Carroll's ingenious idea of a way to test artificial gravity using a tether attaching the Soyuz TMA during a routine mission to the ISS.

The combination of some data points from a short arm centrifuge, and some from a tether system hundreds of meters in length, could help us to start to map out the effects on humans. And then suggest where to go next in our experiments. Then when we build something like Nautilus - it might be exactly the same design - but it might be there are various modifications. E.g. instead of sleeping compartments, build it with exercising areas. Or designed so you can run around in a running track. Or add in an area where you can eat meals or go to the toilet in artificial gravity. Or make it so it is easy to stop it and start it so you can do artificial gravity for just an hour a day  if that is what humans need for health. We could get preliminary information on all that with the lower cost preliminary experiments.

See also

Robert Walker's answer to What is the longest time an astronaut can spend in space before it is too hard to re-acclimatize to Earth?

(This is a shortened version, with some of the material from that answer, and an extra paragraph or so introduction).

About the Author

Robert Walker

Robert Walker

Writer of articles on Mars and Space issues - Software Developer of Tune Smithy, Bounce Metronome etc.
Studied at Wolfson College, Oxford
Lives in Isle of Mull
4.8m answer views110.3k this month
Top Writer2017, 2016, and 2015
Published WriterHuffPost, Slate, and 4 more