they should just make a more practical solution like magnetic boots or something.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Space: The Final Frontier
- Thread starter Windu
- Start date
they should just make a more practical solution like magnetic boots or something.
Elfforkusu
Member
I presume centrifugal force, since that's the only way we know how to create artificial gravity.
The living quarters are rotating fast enough (if it's something big, it's actually not that fast) that you can achieve something "close enough" to normal gravity on the inside of the wheel. The number I've seen is 0.4 G to avoid negative health effects, though I don't know if that's accurate or not.
In this case the front part of the enterprise would be big a rotating disc. "down" would be to the sides of the rotating disc. As you got closer to the center, e.g. warehouses and the radiation shelter, the pseudo-gravity would be less.
Elfforkusu
Member
In what sense?
if the wheel is positioned perpendicular to the main 'saucer' area it means everyone would be walking on the sides of the walls.
Elfforkusu
Member
The wheel is the main saucer area.
Doesn't the whole saucer need to be spinning, not just one part of it?
Edit: new page derp.
The inside surface of the wheel is perpendicular to the interior walking surface. From the profile view the 'wheel' is a flat ellipse, meaning that it would generate gravity along the 'left and the right' walls in the saucer's interiors. Not sure why the entire outside hull should be spinning when they could just make the interior compartment spin inside the shell?
Short answer yes.
Elfforkusu
Member
The interior walking surface would be multi-level with 'left and right' as down. Levels closer to the center would be at reduced gravity (ultimately at 0 gravity), and have much smaller floorplans.
As for "making the interior compartment spin inside the shell", I'm not sure what advantage that gives us. We already need the thing that's spinning to have a wide diameter (e.g. the whole front section of the ship) so we can get good gravitational results with a lower rpm.
Structural rigidity. i imagine if we could actually pull this kind of thing of 3 feet of hull material wouldn't make a huge difference. Replacing moving parts inside of a pressurized cabin would be considerably easier.
Elfforkusu
Member
I can't visualize how a shell alleviates structural concerns. The wheel can only be rigidly (not sure I'm using this word the same way you are) connected at its center, which I'll admit does make this and any other spaceship design invoking a stanford torus an engineering nightmare.
Repairs is an interesting case, though I'm not sure it justifies the shell on its own. That I think reduces to simple accounting (cost doing occasional repairs in vacuum VS cost to build/maintain/pressurize shell), and there's no way to tell one way or the other until we try.
e: sorry about the 12 edits, I'm done now I promise!
i see your point. I just don't find exposing moving parts to sub zero temperatures and extreme radiation a good idea.
Elfforkusu
Member
Agreed about the temperatures -- though I think that problem is solvable (screen direct sunlight, every ship gets a pair of sunglasses!).
Radiation is a gross problem that we're just going to have to work around.
To be fair its not just radiation. metal grinding on metal is the natural order of moving parts. We cant have space freezing or radiation melting the lubricant. Its simply more elegant to do it in some sort of an encasing.
Elfforkusu
Member
Agreed, bearing in mind that the "moving parts" here are the few sections where the (spinning) wheel are connected to the rest of the ship. (engines, etc)
The wheel itself is static from its frame of reference, it's the rest of the universe that's rotating around it.
The wheel itself is static from its frame of reference, it's the rest of the universe that's rotating around it.
bearing in mind, yeah that's right
Rofl..we're sounding almost like we know what we're talking about.
Where did you get that figure? Im not doubting...just wondering
That wouldn't be so bad if we weren't spending it on frivolous shit
Elfforkusu
Member
Which is why we need to give NASA a bigger budget, so they can invent the technology to drive the cost down and absorb the expense in the meantime. (we're already doing this with the commerical "space race" -- driven by funding from NASA. We just need the GOP to not cripple their funding)
Investment, dudes!
Here's a PDF showing the cost per lb for various space vehicles:
http://www.futron.com/upload/wysiwy...rs/Space_Transportation_Costs_Trends_0902.pdf
The space shuttle cost was $4700/lb. I just rounded down, since it's possible we could have a better method to put stuff into space by then.
Elfforkusu
Member
I wouldn't want to use the exact figure, since the orbiters were expensive as hell, but take out an order of magnitude to be extemely optimistic: $400 per lb is still obscenely pricey for anybody who doesn't print their own money.
The carbon nanotube space elevator would probably be our best hope.
http://phys.org/news151938445.html
http://phys.org/news151938445.html
Elfforkusu
Member
Not a big believer in space elevators.
I hope to be proven wrong, and maybe if I looked into the materials science I'd become a true believer, but... afaik, we're talking about applying a material that doesn't exist yet.
I hope to be proven wrong, and maybe if I looked into the materials science I'd become a true believer, but... afaik, we're talking about applying a material that doesn't exist yet.
It exists, but there are some barriers to large scale fabrication that still need to be worked out.
ThoseDeafMutes
Member
Laser ablative propulsion, mass drivers and nuclear verne guns 4 lyfe
Ah man. Thats depressing.
Not to mention a whole bunch of other problems and unknowns. I'm not saying that the idea should be chucked out the window or anything, but skepticism at the feasibility of such a project is prudent.
Here's a decent article on the subject: http://www.last-redoubt.com/articles/6/
Oh, wow. I didn't think about all of those. Guess that's never going to happen.
Thanks for the article.
Leeroy3101
Banned
After watching Contact I've decided to watch Cosmos. Is much of this factually incorrect by today's standards? I'm about halfway through the first episode and I'm loving every moment of it.
Carl Sagan is to astrology as Bob Ross is to painting. I can listen to this guy talk about the universe for a long long time.
Carl Sagan is to astrology as Bob Ross is to painting. I can listen to this guy talk about the universe for a long long time.
SteveWinwood
Member
Really good lookin' northern lights last night. Y'all are jealous.
Leeroy3101
Banned
Oops...
Astronomy*
Astronomy*
Insane Metal
Member
LoL, damn.
PantherLotus
Professional Schmuck
No, most/all of what Carl Sagan was speaking about during the Cosmos years is still applicable, though some details have since been fleshed out a bit more (evolutionary gaps, higgs/boson, dark energy/matter, etc).
If you watch Cosmos front to back and are able to repeat it back to someone else well enough for that person to understand wtf you were talking about, you'd be scientifically more literate than the vast majority of anyone on the planet.
We all strongly suggest following up Cosmos with Wonders of the Solar System and Wonders of the Universe. Be wary of things with Morgan Freeman and/or Steven Hawking attached. They're quite good honestly, but get really, really far out there into theoretical physics but use really goofy visuals and examples to explain stuff.
If you watch Cosmos front to back and are able to repeat it back to someone else well enough for that person to understand wtf you were talking about, you'd be scientifically more literate than the vast majority of anyone on the planet.
We all strongly suggest following up Cosmos with Wonders of the Solar System and Wonders of the Universe. Be wary of things with Morgan Freeman and/or Steven Hawking attached. They're quite good honestly, but get really, really far out there into theoretical physics but use really goofy visuals and examples to explain stuff.
Leeroy3101
Banned
I was amazed at the first episode how Sagan chronicled early scientists. I sort of remember learning about this but not at the depth that Sagan went into it.
Thanks for the recommendations and I'll continue watching.
Thanks for the recommendations and I'll continue watching.
Elfforkusu
Member
*brofist*
you're right. i need to see that before i die. whereabouts are you to see it?
Leeroy3101
Banned
Thank you Carl Sagan for telling me about The Miller-Urey Experiment. I never learned about this experiment in any of my science education. This should be the backbone of teaching biology.
SteveWinwood
Member
Northern minnesota.
PantherLotus
Professional Schmuck
Is that the one where he talks about how the Egyptians knew the Earth was round based? Phenomenal.
Leeroy3101
Banned
Yeah, it was that. All based off of obelisks in different Egyptian towns. Can't believe the one guy paid someone else to pace a really long distance through harsh terrain.
Has this been posted?
HD Earth taken by Russian satellite. It's infra-red to prevent damage to the camera from the sun.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=-cdQRjQqp5A
HD Earth taken by Russian satellite. It's infra-red to prevent damage to the camera from the sun.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=-cdQRjQqp5A
Insane Metal
Member
Crazy, dude! 
Thanks for posting!
Thanks for posting!
Neverender
Member
Least favorite episode of Cosmos is the one about Kepler, it dragged on a bit I felt. Otherwise probably my favorite TV show/Documentary series.
Leeroy3101
Banned
Yeah, I'll have to agree. It's been the one that's barely held my attention. I really enjoyed the Mars one I just watched.
I'm amazed Sagan, despite his unfortunate passing, doesn't get more press today.
I'm amazed Sagan, despite his unfortunate passing, doesn't get more press today.
PantherLotus
Professional Schmuck
I don't suppose any of you have seen Cosmos available in audiobook, esp. in .mp3?