Talk:Centrifuge Accommodations Module

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Centrifuge Accommodations Module article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Spaceflight: Space stations Mid‑importance Spaceflight portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Spaceflight, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of spaceflight on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks. Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by the space stations working group.

Context

In what context? What is this part of?

It was planned to be a part of the International Space Station. But, due in part do the Space Shuttle problems and cost, was cancelled.Ingres77 20:48, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Specific Uses

I don't know what specific uses were planned for this vehicle, so I hesitate to put this in the article, but an interesting use would have been to grow an animal from pre-natal to adulthood in 2g. I imagine it would develop a very low-center-of-balance skeleton, and very strong muscular system. [Such an animal would have the time of its life if returned to normal gravity, but would probably come to suffer aches as its body would not be designed for 1g. Certain body areas designed to "push upward" (such as the lower back in humans) would be over-developed in such an animal, and at 1g, they would be constantly pushing up too hard. Sometimes astronauts suffer lower back aches after a time while weightless.]Tragic romance 06:42, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

The study of > 1 g effects on development would be very interesting, but it can be done on Earth. Long term effects of 1/3 and 1/6 g cannot be done on Earth but could have been done on the CAM. What a loss. 58.147.58.179 (talk) 06:09, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

The Space Station Biological Research Program was to have been located in this module. Biological experiments contrasting a zero-gravity environment with a gravitational environment would have been possible by running two identical experiments, one in a holding rack and one in the centrifuge. --Skylax 23:28, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

A minor reference for describing the impact of the cancellation of the CAM could be Artificial Gravity by Gilles Clément & Angelia P. Bukley, which devotes a paragraph to the CAM (on page 72), which ends:

It is unfortunate that this centrifuge, which was the heart of the gravitational biology flight program, was eliminated from the ISS program. Not only was it essential for basic research, but it also formed the basis for understanding the physiological effects of short radius artificial gravity in a manner needed for effective human artificial gravity prescription.

-- 119.31.121.89 (talk) 22:21, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Current status

At what stage is it canceled? Is it build, tested or delivered to NASA already? 212.36.8.100 16:58, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

If it is already build maybe it can be launched with the last "reserve flight" of the Shuttle? The other "reserve flight" will be used for the DCM. 212.36.8.100 11:10, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

As shown in a photo in the article, the (barely built) shell is in a parking lot at Tsukuba. It's not in launchable condition (not without several hundred million dollars in outfitting, anyways). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.138.116.38 (talk) 21:23, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

When was it decided not to finish and launch the CAM

When was it decided not to finish and launch the CAM ? Before or after NASA obtained ownership ? The scheduling problems, presumably, were a direct result of the impending retirement in 2010, announced in 2004. - Rod57 (talk) 19:22, 17 June 2023 (UTC)