Emily Petersen was selected by Purdue’s Women in Engineering Program for a travel grant and also was awarded The Future Space Leaders Grant.

Emily Petersen knows the topic is controversial.

She knows some people think artificial gravity is a far-fetched idea, something only out of 2001: A Space Odyssey.

But that hasn’t stopped Petersen, a master’s student in AAE, from pursuing solutions and building awareness of what a future in astronautics could look like with artificial gravity. And not only by delving into the technical aspects of actually developing artificial gravity but also by creating business models that center on partnering with other industries so it’s actual feasible.

“It’s not this big pie-in-the-sky, Star-Trek idea that people kind of laugh at. It’s actually doable,” Petersen says.

And people are listening.

Petersen’s research, “From 2001: A Space Odyssey to Tomorrow’s Reality: Evolving Artificial Gravity through Strategic Development,” was selected by Purdue’s Women in Engineering Program for a travel grant. She’ll leave Sept. 25 for Bremen, Germany, to present at the International Astronautical Congress (IAC) in early October. Petersen also was awarded The Future Space Leaders Grant, and she’ll attend the Space Generation Congress prior to the IAC.

“I was thrilled,” Petersen says of winning the grants. “Those two funding sources for me are huge. I wouldn’t be able to go otherwise. This research has been largely self-funded and self-driven. I have no co-authors or affiliation with a lab, so having funding sources is everything. I’m extremely grateful.

“The IAC attracts researchers and entrepreneurs from all over the world. It really is the premiere platform for the astronautics community. All the folks doing the coolest, leading-edge research are there. I’m so excited to learn from them and contribute in my own way. I believe almost 4,300 abstracts were submitted this year, so I was thrilled that mine was selected.”

Petersen initially started the research in 2015 while she was an intern at NASA. She continued the research with a mentor for about a year before, ultimately, taking it over on her own. She’s shifted the focus over the years, initially emphasizing technical designs for artificial gravity but then started looking at why the current business model isn’t conducive to the environment now.

She presented her research this summer at a conference in L.A., which was her first foray into looking at her research from a business development standpoint, and she says there was a good reception. The presentation at the IAC will be the next step.

Petersen admits tackling something that does not exist can be a “blessing and a curse.”

“As a young engineer, it’s kind of awesome,” she says. “My manager put it to me this way when I first started hammering away at this: ‘No one can tell you that you’re wrong. Maybe your idea isn’t the best idea, but no one can tell you it’s wrong because no one has done it.’

“Few people right now seem willing to stick their neck out and say, ‘This technology should be developed.’ But I think everyone is aware that our current pharmaceutical regimen, the exercise regimen, is kind of a Band-Aid solution.”

Petersen has identified a number of stages and technical hurdles that have to be overcome to spin a vehicle space – because she’s approaching the idea of creating artificial gravity from a rotation point of view. One challenge is lack of knowledge: No one knows how well humans do rotating in space. How fast can they be spun before they get nauseous?

To answer that question, Petersen proposes pairing with private health care.

“I know they’ve shown for osteoporosis research if you have dynamic cyclic loading, then you can generate bone formation. What if you partnered with them and this could solve both our problems?” Petersen says. “This could check our box within the astronautics community, so that we can develop some parameters and it could also, maybe, turn into a device that creates that cyclic loading through rotating someone at variable speeds.”

But Petersen knows that’s only one problem that needs solving. Another step would be to create a stable vehicle where parts of it are rotating and others – like the communication systems – are not. A considerable amount of more challenges exist.

“I can appreciate why the astronautics community hasn’t jumped all over it. Essentially what you’re doing, and this is part of why it’s controversial, you’re looking at all these old designs that everything else has bene built off of, and you’re saying, ‘These are really nice. We’re going to start from scratch.’ ” Petersen says. “No one wants to hear, ‘The design you’ve been working on your whole career, we’re not going to use it anymore.’ That’s not going to make you popular with anybody.

“The approach I’m trying to take is a deviation of this moonshot approach of, ‘Here’s this grand challenge. Let’s throw a lot of money at it and hope it sticks.’ That’s simply not sustainable. Combining the inspiring, visionary components of that approach with a lily pad model, where you have incremental, enabling innovations that can sprout on their own lets our partners take the reins and build both political and financial support. Then the astronautics community can check that box and say, ‘All right, we know this much more. Now, what’s our next hurdle?’ I think that’s a much more sustainable approach.”

Petersen’s manuscript for IAC will be available soon HERE.