4 ms·
Couldn’t we get that from a spinning satellite closer to earth?
by cookingrobot 8y ago
Couldn’t we get that from a spinning satellite closer to earth?
- mrtksn 8y agoNo, the satellites stay in orbit only because the net G they experience is 0.
- i_am_proteus 8y agoI believe the parent was referring to pseudogravity via rotation ('centrifugal force')-- hence the reference to a spinning satellite.
- mrtksn 8y agoAnd how this related to the proximity to the Earth? I think the OP meant being close to the Earth would result in a gravity due to the proximity.
- isostatic 8y agoI read it as being cheaper to get experiments there (1kg to LEO is cheaper than 1kg to soft land on the moon)
- mrtksn 8y agoIf that's the correct meaning, then O.K. My bad.
- cookingrobot 8y agoYes, exactly what I meant. It seems a lot easier to get an experiment into orbit than onto the moon. If you connect two halves of the satellite with a long tether, you could reduce the coriolis effects, if that's really an issue.
- bdamm 8y agoThere are spinning experiments on the ISS.
- Filligree 8y agoSpin can indeed create (effective) gravity, but it differs due to the coriolis effect. We'd have two options: We can build a really big satellite, so as to minimize that effect -- or we could assume plants aren't sensitive to it, and hope for the best. Needless to say, most scientists aren't fans of the second option. Incidentally, long-term it would be possible to achieve 1g on the moon by way of a similarly huge centrifuge.
- mrfusion 8y agoAnother option is simply using a tether and a counterweight.
- A2017U1 8y agoI can't grasp the centrifuge option, won't there still be two forces? It'll be more like those carnival rides than artificial gravity. A dropped ball won't fall straight "down".
- Filligree 8y agoOn Moon? The compartments would have to be tilted relative to the centrifuge, such that down becomes properly down.