3 ms·

We can. It's been written about for decades. It's just expensive.

londons_explore 5y ago
But why is it hard or expensive. These spacecraft can already withstand earth gravity, because we built them here on earth and they didn't collapse during construction. They typically already have lifting points to lift them with a crane too. Cable is cheap and light. Getting the whole lot spinning can be done very slowly over many days with the same ion thrusters that are used for stationkeeping. Total delta-V isn't very high. Total fuel used isn't very high either. The only disadvantage really is that you lose most of the benefits of zero-G. for example, long running experiments requiring zero G. You also start to need walkways and paths. The ceiling of rooms becomes dead unusable space. etc. Docking new spacecraft requires stopping the spinning, which takes many days. Comms antennas and solar arrays get more expensive.
- throwaway0a5e 5y ago
  >The only disadvantage really is that you lose most of the benefits of zero-G. for example, long running experiments requiring zero G. You also start to need walkways and paths. The ceiling of rooms becomes dead unusable space. etc. Docking new spacecraft requires stopping the spinning, which takes many days. For a one way trip to "elsewhere" none of that matters much. We'll probably see this approach investigated more fully when a one way trip to elsewhere seems more likely.
- JoeAltmaier 5y ago
  TO dock you have to spin down and then spin back up again? It's a hard problem.
- 3pt14159 5y ago
  I actually agree with your underlying urge: space travel should be pleasant! But what separates out engineering from science is essentially economics. In science we don't know the scale a discovery will make until we've made it. Before nuclear weapons how could we know that studying these tiny atoms would essentially end total war between major powers. With engineering smart people looked at the costs and said something like: > We're 99.9% sure this is going to be >2x the alternative and it's not worth it. Just off the top of my head costs that go up: - Instruments (lol, our cameras now need faster f-stops) - Every need now needs to be met during the spinning state and the non-spinning state. (lol, Frank you used the gravity toilet in the middle of the night but we stopped the spinning state yesterday) - Harder to maintain, since crew needs to lose angular momentum as they travel along the bridge and they can't toss things around as easily.

But why is it hard or expensive. These spacecraft can already withstand earth gravity, because we built them here on earth and they didn't collapse during construction. They typically already have lifting points to lift them with a crane too. Cable is cheap and light. Getting the whole lot spinning can be done very slowly over many days with the same ion thrusters that are used for stationkeeping. Total delta-V isn't very high. Total fuel used isn't very high either. The only disadvantage really is that you lose most of the benefits of zero-G. for example, long running experiments requiring zero G. You also start to need walkways and paths. The ceiling of rooms becomes dead unusable space. etc. Docking new spacecraft requires stopping the spinning, which takes many days. Comms antennas and solar arrays get more expensive.

throwaway0a5e 5y ago
>The only disadvantage really is that you lose most of the benefits of zero-G. for example, long running experiments requiring zero G. You also start to need walkways and paths. The ceiling of rooms becomes dead unusable space. etc. Docking new spacecraft requires stopping the spinning, which takes many days. For a one way trip to "elsewhere" none of that matters much. We'll probably see this approach investigated more fully when a one way trip to elsewhere seems more likely.
JoeAltmaier 5y ago
TO dock you have to spin down and then spin back up again? It's a hard problem.
3pt14159 5y ago
I actually agree with your underlying urge: space travel should be pleasant! But what separates out engineering from science is essentially economics. In science we don't know the scale a discovery will make until we've made it. Before nuclear weapons how could we know that studying these tiny atoms would essentially end total war between major powers. With engineering smart people looked at the costs and said something like: > We're 99.9% sure this is going to be >2x the alternative and it's not worth it. Just off the top of my head costs that go up: - Instruments (lol, our cameras now need faster f-stops) - Every need now needs to be met during the spinning state and the non-spinning state. (lol, Frank you used the gravity toilet in the middle of the night but we stopped the spinning state yesterday) - Harder to maintain, since crew needs to lose angular momentum as they travel along the bridge and they can't toss things around as easily.