4 ms·

Since we're talking about space, I am wondering when some nation can build a rotating space station. Null-gravity is nice to play in, and some null-g research

Since we're talking about space, I am wondering when some nation can build a rotating space station. Null-gravity is nice to play in, and some null-g research is necessary. But to work, and operate normally, null-g sucks. Especially if you need to handle fluids. And if you need to do an emergency surgery in space, then dealing with floating blood is disgusting and biologically hazardous. As well as dealing with used surgical tools that can float around. I would rather live in a centrifuge space station, and go to the null-g zone to conduct my work research. It's interesting how in all scifi movies, all the spacecraft have an artificial gravity. It's too bad China's proposed space station, will not break new ground, and have a rotating space station. They would need to spend much more money on designing and building it, than what they are willing to spend.

sschueller 9y ago
I think the main issue is the size required to do this in order not to spin something at a ridiculous speed.
dmurray 9y ago
> It's interesting how in all scifi movies, all the spacecraft have an artificial gravity. Possibly related to the fact that all film studios are subject to gravity.
- blackrock 9y ago
  You know.. I never actually considered that possibility..
maccam94 9y ago
I've actually been posting about this a bit recently on various threads. I think a permanent rotating space station with 1G artificial gravity in low earth orbit could be the next stepping stone to opening access into outer space. Facilities with gravity would enable permanent habitation without bone and muscle loss, and manufacturing could be done with existing processes. As to why we haven't built one already, the main reason is because early research indicated that such structures would have to be prohibitively large to avoid nausea (300+ meter diameter) and require thousands of tons of shielding. The Space Shuttle's lift capacity was also limited (only 25T of payload) and expensive ($450M/launch). This paper suggests that humans are more tolerant of a rotating environment than early studies led us to believe, and that shielding is unnecessary for some low-Earth orbits: http://www.nss.org/settlement/space/GlobusRotationPaper.pdf http://www.nss.org/settlement/space/GlobusRotationPaper.pdf (In particular, see pages 19-23) The figures it suggests are ~600 tons of mass, 25m to 60m radius for the station. Falcon Heavy can launch 63T for $95M, and the BFR is aiming for 150T for $7M.
skookumchuck 9y ago
You don't actually need a wheel. Just a counterweight and a cable. It's unlikely a full g is necessary, anyway. A half would do well.
- lorenzhs 9y ago
  You might be able to get by with even less if your goal is to provide a consistent up/down and not have to velcro everything down. I don't have any sourcing for it and obviously it's from a Sci-Fi book, even if it's one that is rather well-researched, but in the Expanse series they use accelerations of around 0.3g a lot (both for stations and ship drives). Would be nice to know if they pulled that number from thin air or what the thought process behind it is.
- anotheryou 9y ago
  They do produce trash and such, no? The counterweight could be build up trash than :)

sschueller 9y ago

I think the main issue is the size required to do this in order not to spin something at a ridiculous speed.

dmurray 9y ago

> It's interesting how in all scifi movies, all the spacecraft have an artificial gravity. Possibly related to the fact that all film studios are subject to gravity.

blackrock 9y ago
You know.. I never actually considered that possibility..

maccam94 9y ago

I've actually been posting about this a bit recently on various threads. I think a permanent rotating space station with 1G artificial gravity in low earth orbit could be the next stepping stone to opening access into outer space. Facilities with gravity would enable permanent habitation without bone and muscle loss, and manufacturing could be done with existing processes. As to why we haven't built one already, the main reason is because early research indicated that such structures would have to be prohibitively large to avoid nausea (300+ meter diameter) and require thousands of tons of shielding. The Space Shuttle's lift capacity was also limited (only 25T of payload) and expensive ($450M/launch). This paper suggests that humans are more tolerant of a rotating environment than early studies led us to believe, and that shielding is unnecessary for some low-Earth orbits: http://www.nss.org/settlement/space/GlobusRotationPaper.pdf http://www.nss.org/settlement/space/GlobusRotationPaper.pdf (In particular, see pages 19-23) The figures it suggests are ~600 tons of mass, 25m to 60m radius for the station. Falcon Heavy can launch 63T for $95M, and the BFR is aiming for 150T for $7M.

skookumchuck 9y ago

You don't actually need a wheel. Just a counterweight and a cable. It's unlikely a full g is necessary, anyway. A half would do well.

lorenzhs 9y ago
You might be able to get by with even less if your goal is to provide a consistent up/down and not have to velcro everything down. I don't have any sourcing for it and obviously it's from a Sci-Fi book, even if it's one that is rather well-researched, but in the Expanse series they use accelerations of around 0.3g a lot (both for stations and ship drives). Would be nice to know if they pulled that number from thin air or what the thought process behind it is.
anotheryou 9y ago
They do produce trash and such, no? The counterweight could be build up trash than :)