Conceptual Design Challenge: Artificial Gravity for Human Colonies on the Moon and Mars

Marcelo Valderrey

12 May, 2024 11:10 PM

Provide artificial gravity to human colonies based on habitats predefined by NASA, ideally matching terrestrial conditions, to mitigate the harmful effects of microgravity on health in the medium and long term.

1. Step 1: Proposal origin

   This challenge is part of the academic work of the School of Mechanical Engineering (EIM) of the Faculty of Exact Sciences, Engineering and Surveying (FCEIA) of the National University of Rosario (UNR). This is the final project of the subject Synthesis of Mechanisms and Machines (M25-SMM), directed by engineers Marcelo Valderrey, Rubén Lupi and Alexis Bregant, and gives continuity to previous works, with themes of NASA and its challenges in GrabCAD , which captured the interest of the students.

   

   
   

   
   

2. Step 2: Conceptual design challenge

   In this case it is about generating conceptual engineering proposals for a system that provides artificial gravity to future human colonies on the Moon and Mars.

   To promote open and diverse proposals, precise technical specifications will not be provided, but rather a Desired Useful Effect (DUE) in qualitative terms, through the following statement:

   • Provide artificial gravity to human colonies based on habitats predefined by NASA, ideally matching terrestrial conditions, to mitigate the harmful effects of microgravity on health in the medium and long term. In this sense, it would be optimal for it to act on the entire human colony or, at least, on the habitats where people reside more regularly (eventually leaving aside the service, storage or other habitats where the stay is for short periods of time).

   
   

   

   
   

   

   
   

   An inspiring idea that should not condition us:

   • Some space stations have rotating parts to obtain artificial gravity through centripetal/centrifugal acceleration, emulating the effect of a planet's gravity.

   

3. Step 3: Boundary conditions for proposals

   The project aims to integrate concepts from previous challenges and align with contemporary ideas on habitat generation, focusing on various fuel tanks and their logistics.

   • Packaging and storage of cargo:

   (NASA Challenge: Lunar Gateway Cargo Packing and Storing);

   • Habitat transportation systems:

   (NASA Challenge: Super Heavy Logistics Transport for the Moon and Mars) and,

   • Logistics containers:

   (NASA Challenge: Moon Movers).

   
   

   While the artificial gravity proposal might be considered separately, this challenge aims to integrate ideas that align with existing concepts, such as habitat types, their deployment to space and planetary surfaces, transportation methods for supplies and tools, and the gradual expansion of colonies constrained by space mission capabilities. Thus, each proposal can leverage existing solutions (and their corresponding GrabCAD models) to "complete the context" of a sustainable human colony and create a more functionally realistic model.

   

4. Step 4: Opening to the GrabCAD community

   Despite being an academic work generated in the "Synthesis of Mechanisms and Machines" (M25-SMM) chair, the challenge is open to the entire GrabCAD community.

   It would be a great pleasure and an honor to receive proposals from any user who wishes to participate with the intention of sharing creative products and processes to contribute to the learning of creativity in engineering.

   A winner will not be defined or rewarded with money: we will all win by improving our engineering practices by watching and helping each other.

   GrabCAD users invited to this challenge do not need to spend too much time adding details to their proposals. We are more focused on the divergent stage of conceptual engineering, during which we try to maximize the quantity and variety of ideas and, in this sense, it is common to use low-definition sketches to express them:

   

   Sometimes, diving excessively into the details of an idea takes us directly to basic or detail engineering stages where conceptual diversity is abandoned (which is what we are looking for in this challenge).

   

   If we need to go deeper into the level of detail to differentiate our idea from another or others, it possibly means that our "concept" is no different from the rest. Conceptual engineering seeks the diversity of concepts that, in general, is detected with the naked eye through sketches of low level of definition:

   

   Of course, after a divergent stage, if we like an idea in particular and we want to detail it to show its full potential, it will be very welcome as a proposal (and even more so if its author allows us to observe his creative process by also publishing the rest of the ideas that had considered, even if they are only photographs of his sketches on paper and pencil).

   
   

   
   

   
   

   
   

   
   

5. Step 5: Academic requirements for proposals

   The academic requirements apply only to students of the "Synthesis of Mechanisms and Machines" class (M25-SMM) in which the aforementioned theoretical concepts are taught.

   See: Creativity in engineering - Part 4 (English version) | GrabCAD Tutorials

   

   Since this challenge is a conceptual engineering test that applies the design methodology proposed in M25-SMM, it will be important to record some useful milestones for subsequent reflection and learning:

   • The previous instances in the generation of ideas. That is, preserving the sketches with varying degrees of definition that served as background for the final proposal, including failed attempts. It is interesting to record the creative process as it is experienced, without wasting time preparing CAD documents, but rather taking photographs of our sketches and notes on paper.

   
   

   • The SSC considered and their versions. That is, spontaneous ideation, state of the art, own generation and eventual CPDC, qualitative-quantitative versions of the DUE, either in text mode or, better yet, illustrated with sketches of very low definition but sufficient to understand the concepts. It's interesting to see how broad we went when considering ideas, instead of just showing the final idea chosen.

   
   

   

   
   

   As the academic objective of the work is to “express creativity” but in a systematic way, following a methodology, the greatest requirement will be to “record the creative process” and not only its final product (the best idea, validated virtually). The history/evolution of design is of interest because it is there where “deficiencies in the exploration of ideas” can be discovered that lead to poorer results or, at least, inferior to those that could be achieved.

   To manage the diversity of ideas in our mind (limited in working memory), it is advisable to keep them (initially, during the divergence) at a low level of definition:

   

   Then, during the convergent stage (after having chosen and globally validated an idea) it will be natural to increase its level of detail to confirm and/or complete the concept and its validation.

6. Step 6: Evaluation of the proposals

   As in any technical proposal of this type, aspects such as:

   • Effectiveness, as the ability to achieve the desired or expected effect.
   • Efficiency, as performance of the resources used to obtain the effect.
   • Constructive feasibility.
   • The reliability of the system.
   • The ergonomics/usability of the system.
   • The energy consumption of the system, for its assembly and subsequent regular operation.
   • The volume and mass of the necessary materials.
   • The feasibility of space transportation in ships such as those of NASA Challenge: Super Heavy Logistics Transport for the Moon and Mars
   • The progressive assembly strategy, based on successive missions, and the necessary tools (their quantity and complexity, as well as the possibility of doing it remotely, without human presence or participation).
   • The progressive start-up strategy, specifying the minimum module capable of functioning. This will differentiate concepts that are functional at each stage of their assembly (cumulative modules) from those that require being fully assembled to function (single block).
   • Aesthetics and eventual perceptions of security/insecurity, pleasure/disgust, etc. since this system would be used permanently and in the long term.

   
   

   Although designers naturally consider all these aspects, when creating (at a subconscious level) they focus more on some than others (except in those cases where the design specifications are very rigid and define specific scores for each of its attributes).

   
   

   

   Winners, prizes and submission requirements

   No monetary prizes will be awarded, nor will winners be established through the evaluation of a jury of experts. It will be a task, firstly, individual and, finally, a group where the group of participants and any other GrabCAD user will express their support for the different proposals through their comments and likes.

   Regarding the submission of proposals, we will follow the guidelines of previous work which, in turn, was based on the common requirements in NASA challenges in GrabCAD.

   

   
   

7. Step 7: Delivery deadline

   Delivery deadline: Wednesday, July 31, 2024, 11:55 p.m. (UTC-3)

8. Step 8: Challenge Management in GrabCAD

   Since we do not have the usual GrabCAD platform for the challenges, it is proposed to use this tutorial as follows:

   1) Comments and queries: we will make them in the comments space, typical of GC tutorials.

   2) Creation of entries: they will be common models to which we will manually add the tag "SMM Challenge Artificial Gravity"

   3) Visibility of models and authors: We will maintain a list of models and authors in "Step 9: ENTRIES and AUTHORS" of the tutorial.

   To join this list, you must send an internal email to Marcelo Valderrey that contains the link of the model to be incorporated and the link of the author himself. If an author wishes to incorporate more than one proposal, it is suggested to send separate messages for each of them.

   The list will be maintained in order of arrival of the messages and will add the tag (SMM) to the name of the authors who are students of the chair or the tag (GC) to those who are users/guests of GrabCAD.

   4) News tracking: Since there is no way to "follow a tutorial" to be aware of its updates, I want to invite you to "follow a discussion" in which I will announce any changes to the challenge tutorial. I propose to use the following discussion:

   News tracking

   posted in the group (to which I suggest you also subscribe):

   Group

   ...

   ...

9. Step 9: ENTRIES and AUTHORS

   List of entries and authors in order of arrival:

   01) Vince S (GC Guest) >>> Martian Habitat Concept

   02) CARLOS SEBASTIAN DI GIULIO (GC Guest) >>> Gravedad Artificial

   03) CARLOS SEBASTIAN DI GIULIO (GC Guest) >>> Sistema de traslado

   04) Marcelo Valderrey >>> G-Train

   05) Juan Manuel Vidoret >>> Arround the world habitat

   06) Juan Manuel Vidoret >>> Colonial Habitat Magnetic

   07) Ignacio José Rossi >>> Perpetual motion

   08) Ignacio José Rossi >>> Exosqueleton

   09) Ignacio José Rossi >>> Swivel ornament

   10) Alexia Coronel >>> The Space Carousel

   11) Alexia Coronel >>> Magnetic Armours

   12) Nicolas Seguenzia >>> Telescopic NS2

   13) Nicolas Seguenzia >>> NS3 - Habitat accelerator by plates and wheels

   14) Matías García >>> The Super Space PAF

   15) Agustin Dario Garcia >>> Rotating Ring Habitat

   16) Agustin Dario Garcia >>> AG Magnetic Suit

   17) Lucas Sianca >>> VIRAGRAV

   18) Joaquin Vidoret >>> Gravity Lift Tower (Final version)

   19) Juan Manuel Vidoret >>> Flying Saucer Habitat

   20) Maximiliano Pizzicotti >>> Animodular Station (Final version)

   21) Paul Felski (GC Guest) >>> Planetarium

   22) Aldana Noelí González >>> HoneyComb Concept

   23) TARUN KUMAR DUTTA (GC Guest) >>> General Idea of Artificial Gravity

   24) Marco Nannini >>> Spinner Concept

   25) Lucas Exequiel Ramirez >>> Modulo Rotacional

   26) Marcos Stanicich >>> Ruleta Rusa

   27) Agustin abel Alturria >>> Toroidal Concepts

   28) Bianca Delprato >>> MegaGYRO24 (Final version)

   29) Lucas Sianca >>> VIRAGRAV (Final version)

   30) Juan Manuel Vidoret >>> SGA Space 1.0 (Final version)

   31) Ignacio José Rossi >>> STAR AT DUSK (Final version)

   32) Luca Bonardi >>> CosmoWheel (Final version)

   33) Matías García >>> Alien Ferris Wheel (Final version)

   34) Lucas Exequiel Ramirez >>> GravityLoop (Final version)

   35) Marco Nannini >>> The Spinner (Final version)

   36) Alexia Coronel >>> The Space Carousel (Final version)

   37) Agustin abel Alturria >>> Estacion condor (Final version)

   38) Alvaro Sanchez >>> ConicGravity V1.0 (Final version)

   39) Lautaro Pastore >>> TWISTER (Final version)

   40) Marcos Stanicich >>> Artificial Gravity Roulette (Final version)

   41) Nicolas Seguenzia >>> NSF - Nodal Spin Framework (Final version)

   42) Juan Frattini >>> NASCAR Track (Final version)

   43) Tomás Mucciacciaro >>> space roller coaster (Final version)

   44) Francisco Gallo >>> LUNAR TRAIN (Final version)

   45) Agustin Dario Garcia >>> The Bracelet (Final version)

   46) Aldana Noelí González >>> Spinner Concept (Final version)

   47) Ramiro Molinari >>> G-3PO (Final version)

   48) Octavio Tumini Bellico >>> Station 42 (Final version)

   49) >>>

   50) >>>

10. Step 10: CERTIFICATES issued by UNR

    Following a query from a GrabCAD colleague, we have decided to grant certificates of participation in this challenge to users who request it (after the challenge closing date and using GrabCAD's internal messaging).

    The following is an image of the format defined for said certificate. If you think it should contain any additional information, please let us know in the comments:

    

    
    

    
    

11. Step 11: Reflections and lessons learned

    Any participant in the challenge (or GC user even if they have not submitted proposals) can request that a particular reflection be published in this space, due to how chaotic the public space for comments on the tutorial can be (impossible to order, group and display properly):

    

    CREATIVE POSSIBILITIES AND BLOCKS: LAYERS OF ONION (by M. Valderrey)

    There are cases, as in this challenge, that have the disadvantage of "polarization of working principles" in a few, or even one, of them. This, at first glance, reduces the possibilities of conceptual diversity in the problem and it seems that we would all tend to work on the same "general concept." For example, the use of the force of inertia due to rotation to replace natural gravity.

    The cases that admit many working principles are, a priori, more diverse in "the first instance of conceptual engineering." But it must be taken into account that there is not a single instance. Conceptual engineering has the typical "onion layers" structure in which the core is the starting point (the working principles) on which other layers of definition and complexity are superimposed (although always on the conceptual level, without enter into the detail of basic or detailed engineering).

    So, even with a relatively small core (like the one in our challenge) there are still many creative possibilities to apply its working principles. Even if we all worked with the same principle (inertia) there would be numerous application possibilities: from a rotating habitat on its axis, through rigid structures that link several habitats rotating at a certain radius, to a train of habitats circulating on some type of track.

    Furthermore, even if we all worked on the same style of application (a train, for example) there are still great creative spaces to propose our own trains in terms of their configuration, modes of operation, possibilities of progressive growth, strategies for entry and egress of people and objects, strategies for incorporation and/or exit from habitats with or without the need to stop the train, structural styles for the tracks, logistical facilities to bring the components and assemble them (with or without human presence), etc. etc

    In this way, creativity is applied to concepts superimposed on the same core (working principle) and with a certain "focus on some aspects of the DUE." For example, some designer may be attracted by the logistical problem of "bringing, lowering and transporting" the first habitats autonomously (without human participation) and in the subsequent progressive growth of the colony, when it begins to be partially inhabited: where to start this process? What to bring first and how to set it up? How to get the first habitat up and running and test it before the first humans arrive? How to receive the first human group of the colony and the subsequent ones?

    Although the overall part of DUE is always the same: providing artificial gravity, there are many more specific aspects of DUE that lead to different ideas and approaches, even if all designers were asked for "the same implementation of a working principle" ( like telling everyone: work on "some kind of train").

    With this I want to convey some peace of mind and prevent you from being held back waiting to "innovate at a point where perhaps there is no room for innovation", and invite you to "redirect creativity" towards other aspects in which there is still a lot to think about and propose. Please note that:

    Creativity is a powerful but enormously timid ability and it is very easy to block it with negative thoughts/emotions, as happens when you think that "you can't find a way and that you won't be able to do this or that thing." Thinking that one can is very good, although it is not enough to ensure a positive result. However, the converse is very forceful: thinking that one "can't" is more than enough to ensure a negative result.

    Bianca Delprato

    This challenge has pushed me to test myself: first, by coming up with ideas that met the given specifications; then, by choosing one of those ideas as the best candidate... only to be frustrated upon realizing that similar solutions already existed. As I discussed with my professor, this only served as a springboard to try to think of something more original and innovative. Then, I had to focus on analyzing exactly how I would materialize the design to meet the objectives. This journey had its ups and downs, but it left me with valuable lessons and helped me improve as a designer.

    

    It was vital to study the EUD before modeling a proposal (by M. Valderrey)

    Conceptual engineering makes sense if the first thing you do is "generate ideas to accomplish a certain desired useful effect."

    To do this, you don't need to model or render or waste time on details. In this case, having provided a 3D habitat, all you needed was to "emulate in MOTION the movement that is proposed as an idea" (before spending time drawing the mechanisms to achieve such movement) and "analyze it thoroughly" to criticize its quality!!! As you can see, just drawing a sketch to obtain several points "inside the habitat" and defining a turning axis were enough to "start seeing in detail the quality of our EUD" and realize things such as: the relative size between the habitat and the turning radius!!! and discover or at least reflect on "what will happen to the astronaut and the cup of coffee in his hand" when he walks through the habitat going through those points (and suffering the variations in artificial gravity)... among many other things REALLY IMPORTANT FOR CONCEPTUAL ENGINEERING!

    

    

    

    

    

    

    

    

    

    Could it be that they have focused on "the shell" instead of focusing on "the concept and its ability to comply with the EUD"???

    

    Not studying this variability could be catastrophic!

    Will the astronaut feel different horizontal thrusts, in addition to the vertical one that emulates gravity?

    How will the free surface of a liquid, such as the coffee in your cup, move?

    

    

    
    

    

    Micro-gravity (by Paul Felski)

    Micro-gravity at the scale of a habitation is a great engineering idea. Especially when those habitats involve living in zero gravity space. A personal favorite for gravity-assistance is the calving disc motion. In this concept a micro-habitat would spin on a coiled axis like a rotating spline. In this description the spline of the habitat would enable forward physical micro-gravity habitats. Thank you for allowing this reflection space!

    
    

    
    

    
    

    
    

    
    

    
    

    
    

    
    

    
    

    
    

    
    

    
    

    
    

    
    

    
    

    
    

    
    

    
    

    
    

    
    

12. Step 12: Links

    This tutorial comes from:

    Creativity in Engineering - Part 4 "CPDC results" | GrabCAD Tutorials

    and continues in:

    Principios de trabajo en ingeniería conceptual | GrabCAD Tutorials

    Working principles in conceptual engineering | GrabCAD Tutorials