Space travel is hard (6 Nov, 2017)

Have your say on today's Aardvark Daily column

Re: Space travel is hard (6 Nov, 2017)

Postby aardvark_admin » Tue Nov 07, 2017 6:14 am

I don't see the problem with creating artificial gravity. The method used in 2001 was pretty much right on the money -- centrifugal force is a great alternative to gravity and all you have to do in order to create it is give your craft some rotational momentum. Perhaps the biggest problem would be dynamic balancing of the ring because there would be a tendency for the centre of rotation to change as people walked around the ring - due to a changing distribution of mass. That could make for some queasy rides if everyone was gathered in one place as the resulting eccentricity would produce a varying "gravity" effect that would be like standing in a roller-coaster. Still, as I said back in the 1960s, "we choose to do these things, not because they are easy but because they are hard" :^)
aardvark_admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 2727
Joined: Wed May 07, 2014 2:10 pm

Re: Space travel is hard (6 Nov, 2017)

Postby hagfish » Tue Nov 07, 2017 7:10 am

A cylinder 200m across would only have to spin about 3x per minute to provide a decent facsimile of gravity. A structure like the London Eye can handle everything gravity and the weather can throw at it - surely a disc floating in space should be easy. Docking would have to be in the same plane as the 'horizontal' axis, and you probably wouldn't want any portholes, because watching the sky race round would be disconcerting. The absence of portholes is a big drawback, for me. It turns the people on board from travellers/crew into passengers/cargo. Why go to all that bother, when I can just as comfortably play Factorio and watch Netflix down here? And have a view.
hagfish
 
Posts: 569
Joined: Thu May 08, 2014 10:28 am

Previous

Return to Today's column

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot] and 2 guests

cron