Work Packages
Project: Hypergravity Habitat
Document type: work-package structure for pre-feasibility programme
Status: working draft
Scope: staged research tasks, deliverables, milestones, dependencies, and success criteria
1. Purpose
This document defines a structured set of work packages for the Hypergravity Habitat pre-feasibility programme. It is intended to make the project understandable to academic reviewers and early-stage research funders.
The work packages are designed to answer one question:
What evidence must be produced before the project can responsibly move from concept to demonstrator?
2. Programme Logic
The work packages follow this sequence:
- verify the research gap,
- make calculations reproducible,
- define requirements and risks,
- identify a minimum useful demonstrator,
- design first payload experiments,
- compare architectures,
- prepare external review and funding material.
3. WP1 — Literature and Facility Review
Objective
Determine whether sustained moderate hypergravity is a real and relevant research gap.
Tasks
- Review artificial-gravity literature.
- Review bed-rest and analogue studies.
- Review human centrifuge studies.
- Review biological hypergravity studies.
- Review plant gravity-response literature.
- Compare existing facilities.
- Identify which questions existing facilities already answer.
Deliverables
- annotated literature review,
- facility comparison,
- source matrix,
- research-gap validation memo.
Milestone
M1: Research gap either confirmed, narrowed, or rejected.
Success Criteria
- at least one defensible unanswered research area is identified,
- claims are supported by source categories,
- gaps are stated cautiously.
4. WP2 — Physics and Parameter Modelling
Objective
Develop reproducible calculations for candidate hypergravity concepts.
Tasks
- Model resultant effective gravity.
- Model centripetal acceleration.
- Calculate radius, speed, angular rate, and bank angle.
- Estimate Coriolis projectile deflection.
- Identify parameter ranges for candidate demonstrators.
- Produce open calculation scripts.
Deliverables
calculations/hypergravity_sizing.py,calculations/coriolis_projectile_deflection.py,- parameter tables,
- physics-reference document,
- plots or diagrams in later phase.
Milestone
M2: Reviewable parameter model exists.
Success Criteria
- calculations are reproducible,
- assumptions are explicit,
- equations are documented,
- reviewers can change input values.
5. WP3 — Requirements, Safety, Ethics, and Risk
Objective
Define the governance and safety framework before architecture selection.
Tasks
- Define technology-neutral requirements.
- Create risk register.
- Create safety-case outline.
- Create ethics and governance framework.
- Define data management requirements.
- Create requirements traceability matrix.
Deliverables
docs/engineering/design-requirements.md,docs/risk-register.md,docs/safety-case-outline.md,docs/ethics-and-governance.md,docs/data-management-plan.md,docs/requirements-traceability-matrix.md.
Milestone
M3: Minimum governance framework exists for a non-human demonstrator.
Success Criteria
- hazards are identified,
- ethical boundaries are explicit,
- human and animal studies are not treated as early defaults,
- requirements can be traced to documents.
6. WP4 — Minimum Useful Demonstrator
Objective
Define the smallest demonstrator that can produce decision-quality evidence.
Tasks
- Compare candidate demonstrator types.
- Define minimum data package.
- Select candidate payload class.
- Define stop/go criteria.
- Estimate cost and risk.
Deliverables
docs/minimum-useful-demonstrator.md,- demonstrator concept table,
- candidate payload requirements,
- stop/go decision logic.
Milestone
M4: First demonstrator candidate selected for expert review.
Success Criteria
- demonstrator is not human-first,
- outputs are measurable,
- confounders are logged,
- failure outcomes are defined.
7. WP5 — Biological and Instrumentation Pilot Design
Objective
Design a first pilot payload that tests both scientific and engineering assumptions.
Tasks
- Define plant seedling payload option.
- Define microbial payload option.
- Define instrumentation-only payload.
- Define environmental enclosure requirements.
- Define matched 1 g control strategy.
- Define analysis and metadata requirements.
Deliverables
- pilot payload concept,
- environmental monitoring plan,
- control plan,
- measurement protocol,
- data-management template.
Milestone
M5: Pilot payload design ready for technical and scientific review.
Success Criteria
- payload can be built within a realistic first funding stage,
- ethical burden is low,
- data will be interpretable,
- platform performance data are produced alongside scientific data.
8. WP6 — Architecture Trade Study
Objective
Compare candidate architecture paths against requirements.
Tasks
- Compare no-build, existing facilities, rotating payload demonstrator, laboratory centrifuge, guided cart, railway, maglev, rotating habitat, and hybrid options.
- Apply criteria for scientific value, safety, cost, measurement quality, and scalability.
- Identify architecture-specific risks.
- Recommend next-stage architecture path.
Deliverables
docs/architecture-trade-study.md,- weighted trade-study table,
- architecture risk map,
- next-stage recommendation.
Milestone
M6: Architecture path recommended for demonstrator stage.
Success Criteria
- no architecture selected prematurely,
- no-build option considered,
- recommendation is linked to requirements.
9. WP7 — Expert Review and Proposal Preparation
Objective
Prepare a package suitable for academic and institutional feedback.
Tasks
- Prepare proposal brief.
- Prepare executive summary.
- Identify potential partners.
- Prepare figures and diagrams.
- Create review questions for experts.
- Incorporate feedback into roadmap.
Deliverables
docs/proposal-brief.md,- partner map,
- review package,
- updated roadmap,
- pre-feasibility proposal outline.
Milestone
M7: External review package ready.
Success Criteria
- project can be sent to experts without appearing speculative,
- first fundable milestone is clear,
- risks and limitations are visible.
10. Dependencies
| Work package |
Depends on |
| WP1 |
none |
| WP2 |
none, but informed by WP1 |
| WP3 |
WP1, WP2 |
| WP4 |
WP1, WP2, WP3 |
| WP5 |
WP4 |
| WP6 |
WP1–WP4 |
| WP7 |
WP1–WP6 |
11. Suggested Timeline Logic
This document does not assign calendar dates. A calendar should be added only after resources and partners are known.
Relative order:
- WP1 and WP2 in parallel,
- WP3 after initial equations and gap review,
- WP4 after requirements and risks,
- WP5 after demonstrator selection,
- WP6 after demonstrator requirements,
- WP7 after enough content exists for serious critique.
12. Review Questions for Funders or Professors
- Is the research gap plausible?
- Are the first-stage work packages too broad?
- Is a biological payload demonstrator the right first experiment?
- Which existing facility should be consulted first?
- Which safety or ethics issue is underestimated?
- What evidence would make the project worth funding?
- What evidence would justify stopping the project?
13. Preliminary Conclusion
The Hypergravity Habitat project should be presented as a pre-feasibility programme with clear work packages. The strongest funding logic is a sequence of literature review, reproducible modelling, requirements and risk definition, payload-first demonstrator design, and expert review.
This structure gives reviewers the opportunity to support, redirect, or reject the project before significant infrastructure commitments are made.