Cap 25, 00 / Dec 26, 16 21:00 UTC

Re: Asgardia: Artificial Gravity  

I don't know what nuclear reactors have to do with artificial gravity. In space we will have sunlight 24/7, so I don't see why we would use nuclear reactors unless we place our habitat outside the orbit of Mars.

Artificial gravity can be induced by spinning the habitat. The inside rim of a wheel or cylinder would experience the maximum of gravity. If the habitat spins too often, residents will feel the Coriolis effect, which causes trajectories to curve in unintuitive ways. The quirks of Coriolis effects may cause longterm psychological problems, such as head aches, involuntary clumsiness, etc.

A full-sized cylinder with a diameter of six kilometers and earthlike gravity at the rim would spin about once every 32 minutes. Coriolis effects would be unnoticeable.

Cap 25, 00 / Dec 26, 16 21:21 UTC

umm

Take many low weight trips with dropships using the method of virgin galactic. Then assemble the shipyard/processing plant overtime. When it is ready start building near earth asteroid mining vessels to increase production of more mining ships use extra materials to build more warehouses and production facilities

Cap 25, 00 / Dec 26, 16 23:02 UTC

Please, please, stop referring to this as artificial gravity. It's actually simulated gravity. It just feels like gravity, but it's not.

Cap 26, 00 / Dec 27, 16 09:10 UTC

Volia, I apologize, after further reading I found that you are correct, nuclear reactors don't produce CO2 emissions during operation.

JOQuantaman, Earlier in the discussion we were talking about the amount of solar panels you would need in order to generate the electricity needed to power a station of significant size. With the orbiting of earth the station would not be in constant sunlight, so there would need to be an alternative to just solar power. We are not talking about substituting solar for nuclear, but using the two in tandem, and we had also mentioned using large cells for storing excess/reserve energy. The reason for the planet orbit is that the station would still be a new concept and we would need to maintain a close proximity to earth until we had all the bugs worked out before long distance voyages.

Cap 29, 00 / Dec 30, 16 23:11 UTC

http://i67.tinypic.com/2598ktd.jpg

this is just an idea of how the station might look. using the outer ring for a 1G environment, while the inner ring can be for low gravity conditioning and a midway point for central power maintenance at the core. I think we could develop a transit system in the "spokes" to allow for easy travel between rings and the core.

  Last edited by:  Paul Miller (Asgardian)  on Cap 29, 00 / Dec 30, 16 23:13 UTC, edited 1 time in total.
Reason: Editing URL

Aqu 15, 01 / Jan 15, 17 01:01 UTC

The problem of stabilization can be solved using mobile masses inside of the spokes of the wheel, they will be moved to leave the centre of mass at the "centre" of the station.

I'm an Italian guy, sorry for my english

Aqu 19, 01 / Jan 19, 17 12:28 UTC

I did some numbers in regards to size, RPMs, and average height (of a person), and this is what I have come up with so far, sorry in advance for the short hand. And if anyone has anything to add to it, or sees where I might have gotten something wrong, please let me know. I also used the more common "1.12" instead of the technical "1.118" to shorten it a bit in the calculations.

"Based on RCF equation (Relative centrifugal force)"

G=G-force(RCF) R=Radius RPM=Rotations per minute


Centrifugal force calculation over 1/2 rpm/ 3.57km radius

G=1.12 x R(mm) x (RPM/1000)^2

1=1.12 x R(mm) x (0.5/1000)^2

1=1.12 x R(mm) x (.0005)^2

1=1.12 x R(mm) x .00000025

R(mm)=1/(1.12 x .00000025)

R(mm)=1/.00000028

R(mm)=3,571,428.5714mm

R(km)=3.5714285714km

3.571(km)=2.218(mi) Radius//////7.14km=4.436mi Diameter

average height 5'6" = 1676.4mm

G=1.12x3,569,752.17(mm)x(.00000025)

G=.99953

Difference in G-force felt from head to toe=.000469G at current estimate.

!!!!!Outer ring rotation exceeding 418 mph!!!!!


...over 1 rpm/ .89km radius

1=1.12xRx(.000001)

R=1/0.00000112

R=892,857.14mm

R=0.892857(km)=0.5548(mi)/////1.79(km)=1.1(mi) Diameter

avg height

G=0.00000112x891,180.74

G=.998

Difference in G-force felt (head to toe) = .002G at current estimate

!!!!!Outer ring rotation exceeding 207 mph!!!!!


...over 1.5 rpm/ ~0.40km radius

G=1.12xRx(1.5/1000)^2

1=1.12xRx(.00000225)

1=0.00000252xR

R=396,825.4mm//~0.40km=~0.25mi///////~0.74km=~0.5mi Diameter

avg height

G=1.12x395,149x(.00000225)

G=.99577

DIff. in G (h.t.t.) = ~0.004G at current estimate

!!!!!Outer ring rotation exceeding 141 mph!!!!!


If we are willing to lower the 1G to 3/4G, we could go to a smaller scale at lower RPMs as well.

  Last edited by:  Paul Miller (Asgardian)  on Aqu 19, 01 / Jan 19, 17 12:35 UTC, edited 2 times in total.
Reason: addition

Aqu 19, 01 / Jan 19, 17 15:02 UTC

Oh guys, I read this and all ideas are to old and not usable. We need modern approach for this to work. For example 2 tubes filed with plasma rotating in opposite direction will make magnetic-electric field in the shape of torus and this is enough to have gravity and basic shield for radiation, impact of small objects, etc. All this already exists and works, we just need very large scale. On this or similar way, result needs to be self electric field because we live in one on earth. Only side effect of such field is actual weight of object inside of field. Making this filed can be done on many ways but important is that we not rotate space station and do unnecessary complications. On other way if station power is solved properly on NEW way, not nuclear, solar, etc... such generator can self induce strong field. We just need to copy nature in all processes.

Be open-minded and think on new ways of doing things. First is energy generation then life support(artificial gravity, shielding..), station design and from that we have EM propulsion, tools, etc.

Just as I see it, we can't use technology from '50 or '60 still used today and build advanced station. This is not the way because NASA would have done this if could.

Aqu 19, 01 / Jan 19, 17 15:18 UTC

It's not about what is new or old, but what works and is efficient. That and copying nature isn't exactly a NEW process.

Aqu 27, 01 / Jan 27, 17 22:15 UTC

make material heavier and launching to the space those heavy materials means a lot of money.

This is an effectively one-time cost that reduces a permanent variable cost in health care. Whatever the particulars, we'll save money in the long term by having a simulated gravity system. The bigger issue is the maintenance costs of such a system. A lot of interesting discussion so far on that.

Aqu 06, 03 / Jan 6, 19 03:00 UTC

Wait I’m confused will asgardia have gravity?