3 ms·

They do show the coriolis effects on Eros(https://expanse.fandom.com/wiki/Coriolis_Effect https://expanse.fandom.com/wiki/Coriolis_Effect). But yes, for the mos

They do show the coriolis effects on Eros(https://expanse.fandom.com/wiki/Coriolis_Effect https://expanse.fandom.com/wiki/Coriolis_Effect). But yes, for the most part we should see more awkward movement at such low g. Both Eros and Ceres are at 0.3g

Pxtl 4y ago
Oh I didn't even realize they spun the asteroids for gravity. I'd assumed they were relying on the natural gravity, which would have no Coriolis but would also mean only 0.03G on Ceres and even less on Eros.
- khedoros1 4y ago
  In the books especially, they talk about going "up" into the cheaper, lower-gravity areas, or "down" to the docks, where outsiders and tourists were more likely to be. The books also have more to say about cladding around Ceres and Eros so that they wouldn't fly apart when spun, and Tycho Station's part in engineering that.
  - mcv 4y ago
    I just wanted to ask about that: if they spun them for gravity, wouldn't they fly apart? Because you'd have a meaningful amount of gravity pulling the rocky surface away from the asteroid. But even cladding the surface to keep it together, you're talking about many tons and tons of rock you suddenly need to keep together. At that point, why not make a space habitat completely separate from the asteroid? It seems silly to put your base on the gravity of an asteroid and then try to undo the gravity of that asteroid.
    - idlewords 4y ago
      As long as a chunk of rock is in one piece (rather than a pile of rubble) it's not going to get pulled apart by a modest amount of gravity. Look at any cliff overhang (or the underside of any boulder) for proof. So the trick is just to pick an asteroid that is not a rubble pile.
      - mcv 4y ago
        Look at cliff erosion. Look at moons and asteroids being pulled apart just by differences in gravity between its different sides. I strongly doubt any asteroid of meaningful size is going to be strong enough to withstand meaningful rotational gravity.

Pxtl 4y ago

Oh I didn't even realize they spun the asteroids for gravity. I'd assumed they were relying on the natural gravity, which would have no Coriolis but would also mean only 0.03G on Ceres and even less on Eros.

khedoros1 4y ago
In the books especially, they talk about going "up" into the cheaper, lower-gravity areas, or "down" to the docks, where outsiders and tourists were more likely to be. The books also have more to say about cladding around Ceres and Eros so that they wouldn't fly apart when spun, and Tycho Station's part in engineering that.
- mcv 4y ago
  I just wanted to ask about that: if they spun them for gravity, wouldn't they fly apart? Because you'd have a meaningful amount of gravity pulling the rocky surface away from the asteroid. But even cladding the surface to keep it together, you're talking about many tons and tons of rock you suddenly need to keep together. At that point, why not make a space habitat completely separate from the asteroid? It seems silly to put your base on the gravity of an asteroid and then try to undo the gravity of that asteroid.
  - idlewords 4y ago
    As long as a chunk of rock is in one piece (rather than a pile of rubble) it's not going to get pulled apart by a modest amount of gravity. Look at any cliff overhang (or the underside of any boulder) for proof. So the trick is just to pick an asteroid that is not a rubble pile.
    - mcv 4y ago
      Look at cliff erosion. Look at moons and asteroids being pulled apart just by differences in gravity between its different sides. I strongly doubt any asteroid of meaningful size is going to be strong enough to withstand meaningful rotational gravity.