5 ms·
> Both are harder to build. Certainly harder for NASA to build in space, but not any harder for this author to build in a computer :-D Good point though: > R
by jrussino 3y ago
> Both are harder to build.
Certainly harder for NASA to build in space, but not any harder for this author to build in a computer :-D
Good point though:
> Regarding the dimensions, I wanted to make the structure as large as possible, while still getting a clear visual sense of the curvature in the interiors. That is how I ended up with the 450-meter radius and 1 RPM spin rate.
So it seems like he wanted to put specific constraints on the size/geometry and worked backwards from there.
- jrussino 3y agoHowever, you could get ~1G by going to ~1.4 RMP or increasing the radius to ~900m (or finding some sweet spot in between), which doesn't seem like it would greatly impact the "vibe" he's trying to create.
- SideburnsOfDoom 3y agoRight, a part of the film's design was "It should curve enough to look cool". At first I found myself questioning the speed of the rotation, it seemed faster than claimed - 1rpm is not a lot? Then I did the math: A quarter turn is a right angle, floor becomes wall. A quarter minute is every 15 seconds. That's about what's happening in the video. And it's quite disconcerting to watch continuously. I would not want to see faster rotation. So the video is chosen for speed of motion and size of ring, and how they look. 1 G would either be faster motion or less curve, and it seems that the author didn't want those, for valid aesthetic reasons.