Artificial Gravity in space

>>8778406
Seems like a bad idea, we should just pump money into Musk's pocket and see what he comes with.

>>8778420
why would it be a bad idea? its the only way (other than linear accelaration) to have perceived gravity on a spacecraft

>>8778406
The best option is obviously to design a spacecraft that has the mass of a planet.

Propulsion might be a bit tough, though.

>>8778439
I guess in the year 3000 we fly the earth around the Universe

>>8778439
Gravity tractor.

Build a 1G planet, then use 2G worth of ion-jet satellites to tow it around.

>>8778406
Works fine on paper, problem is that humans actually get pretty fucked up if they stay in a rapidly rotating frame for too long. For astronauts to be able to live and work under this kind of artificial gravity, the radius of the bar/ring/whatever needs to be large enough that you can get away with rotating at like 1-2 rpm.

Getting anything comparable to 1 G would require stations hundreds of meters across.

>>8778406
>>8778442
>>8778439
>>8778448
Perhaps a 5,429,091 kiloliters of neutron star material? Delta V will still be a bitch if you want to change trajectory. It'd be close to 1g I think. lol

>>8778467
Size wouldn't be a problem. You can easily build a 1km wide hoop space ship with modern technology and maintain it in either solar orbit or Earth orbit. Of course it'd be expense and who wants to do anything expensive?

>>8778472
>You can easily build a 1km wide hoop space ship with modern technology
It took us $150 billion and 14 years to assemble a station with roughly the same pressurized volume as a passenger jet.

>>8778406
It amuses me that von Braun was pushing spoked wheel space stations in Colliers and on Disney n the 1950s, and that is STILL the ideal...

>>8778507
I'm sure they could have done that much much faster with the backing of civilization. Science endeavors are always sidelined.

If it was only NASA, begging for funding scraps who was in charge of building a 1km wide space hoop then it'd never get done.

>Of course it'd be expense and who wants to do anything expensive?

move a really large asteroid to a lagrange point.

hollow out a large cylinder. build an o'neil cylinder inside it.

spin it.

>>8778555
It's a pretty reasonable shape.
The only other obvious way to get artificial gravity is with a rotating tethered station.

>>8778406
>Create gravity by spinning shit
oh
kay

>>8778420
Do people actually think like this?

>>8778406
In the very very far future we might have a good enough grasp on Einsteinian Gravitation to manipulate space in that the natural path of objects in the station is towards the artificial center of mass.

Currently spinning. For a very long time spinning.

>>8778439
This is not feasible.
Even if we had the money and more importantly the materials, it's simply not physically possible for something so massive to escape the gravity well of a larger planet.

Considering we wouldn't be able to build such a massive craft for a very long time, it is conceivable that an alternative to conventional propulsion is discovered.

>>8778625
Perceived gravity.

File: space station.jpg (272KB, 640x490px) Image search: [Google]

272KB, 640x490px

>>8778406
Donut is the optimal shape but it's a bit difficult to do actually build and launch. You can approximate it through a hexagon though. Built properly and launched in one piece it could unfold and be set to spin up all on is own. During the 60s NASA and/or one the US Aerospace companies (I forget which. Rockwell maybe?) built a working model of one such design. From an engineering standpoint though I think the simplest approach is ditching the idea of a wheel and having three separate arms. That pivot out following launch. pic related.

I had really good .pdf on some of the self deploying designs that discussed both the hexagon and three arm concepts = that I need to find and reread.

File: Classic NASA Film - Skylab - #4.webm (3MB, 320x240px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 320x240px

>>8778750
You build it in space and launch parts.

>>8778626
Who else has a better chance?

Musk has the means and the drive to do it. Very few people on earth has that. And he's got silicon valley under him for additional support.

>>8778750
I like this idea, but something like this would be rather large and hard to launch. Even if you launch each part separately and combine them in space.

>>8778755
>launch parts

nonono

you launch tools. you get the raw materials in space.

File: AC76-0525f.jpg (273KB, 996x776px) Image search: [Google]

273KB, 996x776px

>>8778406
Hm... Space Settlements: A Design Study
you seek.
https://settlement.arc.nasa.gov/75SummerStudy/s.s.doc.html

>>8778467
Humans actually get pretty fucked up just by being in the upper atmosphere, let alone in a space station or space ship. There are so many complications and damages, many are very nuanced. There are probably a lot more that we don't know of because we don't have the sample size or time frame to notice them yet.

To be honest we should focus on shedding our biology before bothering with anything beyond our planet. We're not going to get far while we still have it.

If we want simulated gravity in space, then yes: a rotating system is the only reasonable answer.

Personally, I don't see humans doing all that much space exploration. I think it will all become automated robotics that do testing and "colonization".

>>8778840
>Hard to launch
Not really. The bulk of the proposals would have gone up in a single launch and then folded out on their own. A few of them would have fit on the Saturn-V although I think a lot of them would have required one of the larger Nova designs iirc.

>>8778755
I'm not sure we've quite reached that point yet. Best bet for the first successful rotating space station would be to do it in a single launch. You'd need a heavy lift vehicle though. SLS Block 2 would probably be able to launch a small demonstrator. Space X 's ITS could definitely do it.

>>8778690
>money
you do realise that the costs of products is based on the availability of said products right? we just need to farm near stars for materials and the prices will be dirtcheap, it would definitly be feasible but not in the near future

>>8778891
Goldmine.

Thank you.

Tfw im a civil engineer and have no experience with designing for space.

>>8778472
Lmao.

Putting that much mass in orbit of another body in the solar system just to set up an outpost?

Just imagine how many space rocks that would end up hurling around the solar system.....

>spinning shit
>Gravity

Retard. that's not how gravity works

>>8780837
gravity is not found by "Spinning shit", but we can create perceive gravity like in star wars and other sci fis

We won't be building any space stations for a long time
Theres zero point in doing so

Would you build a "colony" in the middle of the ocean?

>>8780849
>>8780849
NO, We won't be with that fucking attitude.faggot

File: 2001-space-station.jpg (19KB, 640x384px) Image search: [Google]

19KB, 640x384px

>>8778592
Or any of a million other rotating configurations. But yes, a wheel is the most visually pleasing.

>>8778592
>The only other obvious way to get artificial gravity is with a rotating tethered station.

16:20 to about 17:50, for those interested. Generated about 0.00015 g. Other tether experiments have been done since then.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Eb4tTfFraxs

>>8778626
I do.

Anyone have a good reference book for space station design? Engineering type reference. Id be interested to see how modules are designed, shielding etc.

>>8781035
All of the stations in 2001 were aesthetic as fuck

File: book.jpg (81KB, 667x878px) Image search: [Google]

81KB, 667x878px

>>8782069
>Anyone have a good reference book for space station design? Engineering type reference. Id be interested to see how modules are designed, shielding etc.
About a year ago I considered making a small game about space station repair. I never got anywhere with the project, but I used this book pretty heavily for inspiration:

>Soviet Space Stations as Analogs, Second Edition
It's available from the NASA technical reports site, but I can't post the link here for some reason.

>>8778555
did gravity change the last 70 years

>>8778406
You wanna hear a retarded idea?
Have the suit spin instead. lol.

File: sinewave_spiral.gif (17KB, 379x301px) Image search: [Google]

17KB, 379x301px

>>8778406
======= ====== ====== - Holodeck
I I I
------------------------------------------------------------------
I I I
======= -Kitchen ====== =======


Make the ships spin on a wire axis

File: AyyLmao.jpg (7KB, 288x216px) Image search: [Google]

7KB, 288x216px

>>8778406
Shaped like DNA but with a wire down the middle.

>>8782944
Nah, make a full on double helix with the base pairs being your interconnections, just for the share scigasms.

>>8778690
So it's better to have a huge armada of small ships instead of a single massive worldship?

>>8782938
Elaborate