COULD YOU FLY A HELICOPTER IN THIS TYPE OF CENTRIFUGAL SPACE STATION??? PLEASE EXPLAIN
>>7990970
Of course. The entire thing is pressurized to 1atm and there is inertial gravity acting on the air and the helicopter (initially.) Once the copter is airborn and begins to change direction, the inertial gravity will be negated. The design of the copter will need to take this into account so it can compensate for this change. A normal helicopter would be able to hover, for a short time, but changing direction and continually hovering will cause it to go out of control eventually. This is because the higher it gets and the longer it hovers, the more the ground below it will rotate away from it. It will then be affected by the air flow. the copter would need to "fly" in the "upstream" direction of the air flow in order to maintain proper flight, but could not reverse direction. Only a copter modified for such an environment could "fly" properly without crashing.
>>7990981
>the longer it hovers, the more the ground below it will rotate away from it
But why does this not happen on Earth?
>>7991169
Because helicopters on earth are held in place by real gravity, not artificial gravity.
>>7991202
according to general relativity, Earth's gravity IS artificial.
>>7991236
>we doesn't knows whence "artificial" definitions.
Where is your handler?
>>7991258
no. At first there would be but laminar flow would eventually cause the air to move along with the cylinder. Near the center of the cylinder the air would be moving pretty fast though..It would be like flying a helicopter through a tornado.
>>7990970
>COULD YOU FLY A HELICOPTER IN THIS TYPE OF CENTRIFUGAL SPACE STATION
no, because I do not have one
>>7991272
oh shit this isnt an O'Neill Cylinder. I thought it was an open space between one side and the other but there is a "roof". Yeah there should be no problem with helicopters on this type of station.
>>7990981
No a helicopter would fly fine. The rotors to function just need air pressure which is provided. In fact the only weird things would happen only if the ring itself is small enough and they would relate to Coriolis effect and the like that also happen on Earth.
Given the ring is big enough it would be just like flying on Earth.
Given the ring is small you would notice that you are accelerating in the direction of rotation when going up, and that the higher you go the less force you need to keep yourself from "falling". To properly hover would be pretty easy. Just keep the helicopter's hull always facing 90 degree down and choose the proper force value. Going fast in the direction of rotation would mean you have to pay attention not to crash into the ground. Going against it would be mean you have to pay attention not to crash into the roof. Going in the dir of rotation would mean you have to use more vertical force, going against it would mean you have to less vertical force. There is a funny point where you are moving at the same speed as the point on ground (linear velocity) but in the other direction which means you can stay afloat without using any force. Going past it would increase the force you need to use to stay afloat, but wouldn't be weird much.
Well the wind might be a problem at really big velocities but that's a problem on Earth also.
>>7990970
It would be very painful
>>7991299
Yeah it's a toroid (donut) rather than a cylinder. Does that change anything in respect to internal winds?
>>7991272
>Near the center of the cylinder the air would be moving pretty fast though
That doesn't sound correct. Why do you say that?
I'm more worried about how the fuck to land a spacecraft on the inside of a ringworld.
When would the spacecraft get affected by the gravity? How many kilometers does the centrifugal forces go up from the surface?
>>7991397
I thought it was an O'Niell cylinder
>>7991399
lel, the centrifugal force is really just inertia. There is no "gravity field" being generated or something. Things which want to keep moving in a straight line are instead forced to move in a circle. So a docking spacecraft would be "weightless" until it got up to matching speed with the "ground."
>>7991414
Does that mean you go flying if you jump on a ringworld? Wouldn't the weather be kinda fucked too?
>>7991427
>Does that mean you go flying if you jump on a ringworld?
No, for the same reason you don't go flying if you jump while riding an airplane.
>Wouldn't the weather be kinda fucked too?
The weather would be different than on a normal planet, yes. Not really "fucked" though.
>>7991427
No, you would have the same speed as the Ringworld when you jumped. Same reason why you don't go flying if you jump in the air while riding a train.
Weather would likely flow the same way it does on Earth, from areas of relative low to high pressure. The only quirk would be that you would need walls around the periphery tall enough to contain the atmosphere.
Really, just read the books. They explain the characteristics of the Ringworld pretty well.
>>7991337
>No a helicopter would fly fine.
Absolutely not. There's no gravity.
>Given the ring is big enough it would be just like flying on Earth.
Then there would be gravity and it'd be fine.
>>7991851
>Absolutely not. There's no gravity.
You don't need gravity to fly, you need dense air or other gas/liquid for helicopter rotors to work. Everything else is solved by the relativity of motion.
>Then there would be gravity and it'd be fine.
Assuming weightless ring that doesn't cause actual gravity significant enough.
The entire thing can be solved with some logic and middle school grade tools like F=mv^2 * 1/R and looking at it from outside observer's perspective
>>7990970
The effects of flying a helicopter in such an environment would be quite unusual. The first thing you'll notice is that as soon as you lift off the ground you'll start to roll down in the direction of the centrifuge's rotation. This is because the centrifuge's frame is rotating with angular velocity [math] \mathbf{\Omega} [/math], and moment you left the surface you established a frame of reference with your tangential velocity when you were on the ground. Then suppose you have a flight computer that corrected for such a fictitious force. Then you'll still witness something unusual when you move in the direction of the centrifuges rotation; you'll experience an increased "gravitational force". And in the opposite direction of rotation, you'll feel a decreasing in "gravitation force". This is because your tangential velocity adds to the original tangential velocity of the centrifuge, [math] V_{0} = R\Omega [/math].
>>7991427
If you move in the opposite direction of the ring world's rotation at the same speed of the rotation. then the pseudo gravity is cancelled. You could then jump straight up and be in a zero G environment.
>>7992337
Not with a normal helicopter. The instant you take off you start negating the inertial gravity. The instant you do that there's no "gravity" left to pull you down and maintain your "weight".
Ever wonder what a weightless helicopter would fly like? It won't be normal in the slightest. You could cut the engines and still be "hovering," though your original rate of ascent would actually still be making you ascend.
You'd basically need a quadrotor that could flip and rotate itself as needed to push itself in the correct direction once it overcame the artificial gravity.
If the station has a relatively large curvature (small radius) relative to the Earth, wouldn't the linear momentum of the helicopter basically make it dive into the ground immediately after taking off, since it is no longer experiencing a centripetal force from the ground to keep it rotating with the station?
>>7992446
Actually, after further thought, it would still be equivalent to Earth. The lift force would provide an acceleration, in the absence of artificial gravity after takeoff, that makes its motion relative to the ground equivalent to that experienced on Earth, neglecting effects from the air. I guess the equivalence principle sort of tells you that. I think you would have to constantly adjust the lift vector to always be perpendicular to the ground, however.
>>7992446
No. The centripetal force is replaced by the thrust from the rotors.
you need an 8 rotor craft. the blades are at a 45 degree angle. the blue and red rotor sets are flipped to each other.
by changing which was the individual rotos spin. you have omnidirectional flight.
>>7992409
hmm, but isn't a helicopter supported by the air of the vortex it creates acting on the ground? and that ground still has pseudo gravity?
>>7992930
Ground effect actually decreases drag and vortexes meaning it allows the plane or helicopter to use less energy to fly. The further up you go the less ground effect there is and more drag and energy needed to fly. Ground effect helps them to resist gravity easier and in this case with artificial gravity the helicopter would fly up easier just the same until it broke the inertial gravity. At which point the ground effect would simply push it away from the ground.
http://www.copters.com/aero/ground_effect.html
>>7990970
>General relativity.
The helicopter would work fine its the same reason a fly can fly just fine in your car while you're doing 60 on the highway.
planes have to adjust down on earth so they would have to adjust up on that shit.
>>7990970
Sure. The main chopper blades would keep the chopper from hitting the ground. The bigger issue is that you would need more blades to balance out the coriolis force.
>>7992379
Centrifugal force is inertia based it doesn't magically generate gravity in the air you need to be touching something. the helicopter uses the air to move so there would be no unusual effect. Just like flying a heli on earth you're in a giant air pocket floating through space.
>>7992384
This anon is right.
>>7993064
There's real gravity in a car and a fly isn't like a helicopter. Real gravity constantly pulls you down even from a great height.
>>7993074
>the helicopter uses the air to move so there would be no unusual effect.
Except that pesky always-going-up thing and never being able to land unless the engines are turned off.
If you jump in ring world, you rotate around your center of mass in the opposite direction the ring is going. You also don't jump towards the center of the ring; you jump orthogonally to the tangent, and the ring continues. Your center of mass moves along a strait line along the vector which is the sum of the vectors in the tangent and its normal from the point of the jump, and your body rotates around that center of mass in the opposite direction of the ring. the ring does or does not move from under your feet depending on the velocity of the jump compared to the velocity of the tangent.
Maybe.
>>7993081
Also planes always go down on earth
>>7990970
A helicopter would have to contend with the Coriolis effect. It wouldn't be a problem for lift but stability and orientation could be an issue.
>>7992409
>Not with a normal helicopter. The instant you take off you start negating the inertial gravity. The instant you do that there's no "gravity" left to pull you down and maintain your "weight".
No you fucking retard there was never any gravity to begin with just circular motions. By hovering up you engage in circular motion of smaller radius. When you are on the ground the real force keeping you moving in circle is the reaction force of the ground, which is replaced by motor thrust. You will still weigh because you are constantly accelerating by fighting the imaginary force of inertia.
>You could cut the engines and still be "hovering,
Wrong. I said what the hover point is assuming that delta of height wasn't big enough. It only happens when you go V of rotation to 0. Otherwise, by cutting your engines in the inner ring of movement you will just crash into the outer ring simulating the ground because you start moving in a straight line.
>though your original rate of ascent would actually still be making you ascend.
You don't go into hover from ascending retard.
Holy shit just think of it without using non-inertial systems because you can't handle it in the slightest.
Are you people fucking dense?
The instant the helicopter takes off it COMPLETELY negates the artificial gravity. It is then weightless, relying on air movement exclusively. It would fly all out of control because a helicopter requires gravity to keep itself aligned for flight. There are no other rotors for directional control in zero-g on a helicopter. It will fly right up, veer around depending on how you are trying to control it and crash into something, be it the ground or the ceiling. Not to mention the wind in the ring would fuck with it immensely.
>>7993417
You are an idiot and do not know what you are talking about, stop posting. We are talking about a helicopter, not a man trying to jump.
>>7993670
Just because its weightless doesn't mean its massless you dense tard. What are you a fucking biologist?
>>7990970
>COULD YOU FLY A HELICOPTER IN THIS TYPE OF CENTRIFUGAL SPACE STATION??? PLEASE EXPLAIN
Yes.
The helicopter doesn't magically start to hover, it uses the local air column, which is mostly static like on earth, to push itself around.
>>7993670
The helicopter is still in contact with the station thorugh the air medium and retains its inertial vector(which subjectively gives a gravity-like impression).
>this whole fucking thread
holy shit. /sci/ is dead, this is the most /b/ tier retarded shit I've ever seen on here.
>>7993670
There is no "artificial gravity," only inertia. And inertia doesn't suddenly disappear just because you stopped touching something. The helicopter can fly just fine. Being held "up" by the air is no different than being held "up" by the floor.
>>7992409
lol are you serious dudertons?
>weightless helicopter
it's weightless, but it's not massless, and it experiences a force equivalent to gravity in the rotating frame, regardless of whether it's in the air or not
>>7993670
lol
:(
I'm so sorry.
Once you negate the inertial gravity that's it. And you do it the instant you get enough lift to raise the helicopter any significant amount. There's NOTHING there to apply constant inertia anymore.
It is the same as climbing a ladder up. The higher you get the less inertia you have. Only this ladder is made of air. But, on a ladder you can go down carefully and gain inertia. In the air, you don't gain inertia when you go down after you've negated it by going up. You'd need to flip the helicopter upside down and have it thrust back down to the ground, which won't turn out very well.
>>7991348
For (you)s
>>7993863
Inertia doesn't have to be "applied." That's pretty central to the concept of inertia, in fact.
>>7993863
Gravity isn't a real force, it's always inertial since GR.
>And you do it the instant you get enough lift to raise the helicopter any significant amount. There's NOTHING there to apply constant inertia anymore.
>>7993916
Oh and by the way. More h here just makes you accelerate along the ground, and significant doesn't mean your retarded definition of lifting it 1 meter up and suddenly no inertia cut engine and hover.
>>7991169
It's because the air in our atmosphere co-rotates along with the planet (otherwise we'd have supersonic winds on the equator). The helicopter is stationary relative to the atmosphere, or adjusts its speed relative to the atmosphere. That's also why the helicopter shouldn't really rotate away from the original spot, unless you count things like Lorentz force (which does happen to take effect on Earth, but it's neglible).
>>7994233
You're a brainlet, kid.
>>7993074
> it doesn't magically generate gravity in the air you need to be touching something.
Your right about that it doesn't use magic.
Helicopter pilot here. Yes, it could.
If I understand the mechanics correctly (which I do), you're simply replacing an equilibrium situation with lift opposing gravity, with an equivalent equilibrium condition in an accelerated reference frame.
However, there will be some unusual tendencies resulting from the rotation. For instance, as you climb and descend (radially towards/away from the center), the helicopter will have a slight tendency to advance/recede with respect to the rest of the habitat due to conservation of (linear) momentum. Probably more noticeably, flying in the retrograde tangential direction (opposite the station's rotation) will reduce the angular velocity of the heli, reducing the amount of lift needed to "fly." Eventually, if you go fast enough, the helicopter will become weightless (which some helicopters are not designed for and explicitly forbid zero-G flight). Flying in the opposite, prograde direction will increase the amount of lift required to maintain radial distance/"altitude," and the heli will need to pull additional G forces as a result.
It would take some getting used to, to say the least.
>>7994890
>with an equivalent non-equilibrium condition*
Fugg :DDDD
The rest is still accurate.
>>7991399
>I'm more worried about how the fuck to land a spacecraft on the inside of a ringworld.
You don't, you land on the outside.
You fly tangentially at the edge of the ring and match you velocity with it. Once you're alongside the ring "lowers" a crane and physically grapples your ship. It then pulls you uo and into a hanger.
>>7990970
I think the coriolis effect would make it pretty hard.
We'd probably have to invent new ways to fly altogether
http://www.bogan.ca/physics/coriolis.html
Yo guys, if you drove a car in the opposite direction of spin and started approaching the speed or rotation, would you start to become weightless?
>>7996507
Yes. Believe it or not but even on Earth if you fly/drive fast enough you become weightless. Fuck air resistance though.
>>7991202
>what is conservation of momentum
>implying forces of different origins behave differently
hello jules verne
>>7993748
Everything on the ground of the ringworld is accelerating. As soon as the helicopter takes off it would have whatever inertia it did when it left while everything else would keep accelerating, meaning it would be heading in a straight line away from the center of the sphere, and eventually into the ground further "around" the ring
>>7993729
The gravity-like impression is the acceleration around the ring, the helicopter would no longer accelerating in a circle, it would be going in a straight line and therefore would experience no "gravitational impression"
>>7991369
Yeah, because there's no path for momentum to be transferred from the air on one side to the air moving the opposite direction on the other side. In a fully pressurized cylinder, you'd get a vortex in the center, but in a torus there's no issue.
>>7997573
>the helicopter would no longer accelerating in a circle,
Yes, it is. It has to be, or it would instantly crash into the ground.
The helicopter *will* experience an illusory turning force that appears to be causing it to pitch towards the ground, which if unresisted will propel it forwards while causing it to fall towards the ground, but if it applies a counterpitch as well as thrusting away from the ground, it will hover in place relative to the ground,.
the moment you take of from the ground there is no longer a force changing constantly changing your direction to the direction of rotation. Therefore you would go straight from a inertial frame of reference point of view, while the space station would maintain is rotational motion. so you would have to compensate for this with the helicopter, wich is perfectly possible. apart from that there is no problem with this whatsoever.
>>7997683
Wouldn't that be almost the same as being drawn "downward"?
>>7997689
from the rotatings space station point of view, sort of. but since the "artificial gravity" vector is constantly changing directions its not completely downwards. the vector will become more and more "backwards" with time.
>>7997683
There's this thing called General Relativity I wonder if you've heard of it?
>>7991272
>at first there would be laminar flow, but then because the tube is so wide and we are talking about air here, reynolds number shows that the flow would become turbulent in the middle.
fixed that for you.
>>7997573
The air in the ring (which at equilibrium will remain stationary with respect to a point on the ring) conveys the inertia just fine you idiot, or do you go flying off sideways at 1000 mph when you jump off a table here on earth?
>>7997683
>let's just completely disavow air resistance, even though it is of major significance here.
>>7990970
No, you'd fly up, straight up and never come down unless you flipped it. You'd also be subject to whatever air currents there are which would probably completely fuck you over.
tl;dr no, you'll crash like a fucking idiot.
>>7997683
>the moment you take of from the ground there is no longer a force changing constantly changing your direction to the direction of rotation
Yes there is, the helicopter doesn't magically lose inertia just because it's not touching the ring's floor, and neither does the air around it. Think of it as the Helicopter "standing" on the air the same way its stands on the ground.
>>7998676
At the very least you could learn Newton's laws of motion before posting this sort of shit.
Why are there so many morons ITT confusing real Earth gravity with Artificial Gravity made from centripetal acceleration?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artificial_gravity
On Earth, you can't turn off gravity. You just have to take a rocket and blast off to space and beyond to get away from it. If you start from space and get closer to the Earth your speed increases due to the gravitational pull.
However, if you start at the center of a centrifuge torrid like in the OP and fly towards the "ground", nothing happens. You don't increase in speed because there's no gravity at all. You haven't undergone any centripetal acceleration. The ground will pass you at x speed.
>>7998682
>Yes there is, the helicopter doesn't magically lose inertia just because it's not touching the ring's floor
You lose centripetal acceleration because the rotor blades put force in the opposite direction, the higher you fly the less centripetal acceleration there is acting on the helicopter. Eventually, centripetal acceleration will reach 0 for the helicopter (baring wind problems).
Centripetal acceleration does not occur in a circular pattern. If you are standing and decide to jump "up" you'd better have good landing skills because your landing will be askew. This is because you do not get carried with the centripetal acceleration of the "ground" at you do when you are on it. While you walk on the "ground" you are constantly fighting Coriolis force in more than one direction.
>>7998686
Go back to playing Halo, kid.
>>7998695
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravity
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artificial_gravity
"Googling is hard." -/sci/
>>7998691
>You lose centripetal acceleration because the rotor blades put force in the opposite direction
No. They don't. I can't put it any more simply than that.
>This is because you do not get carried with the centripetal acceleration of the "ground" at you do when you are on it.
Yes you do. The air around you also experiences the same centripetal acceleration. In the case of the helicopter, no It isn't touching the "ground" but it is touching the air, which touches the ground. There is no force acting on the air or the helicopter causing either to lose their inertia.
Seriously, Newton's laws of motion. Learn them.
>>7998691
>If you are standing and decide to jump "up" you'd better have good landing skills because your landing will be askew.
????????????????????????????????????????????
You intrigue me. What's your field/level of study?
>>7998708
I should also add that even without air, jumping would still result in you landing quite normally, assuming the ring you're on is large enough to simulate a level surface.
>>7998691
>Demonstrates a complete ignorance of Newtonian mechanics.
>Go back to playing Halo, kid.
Jesus Christ.
Look, ignore the walls and shit and just imagine a helicopter floating in a cloud of air. The helicopter can obviously simulate gravity by doing loop-the-loops inside of that cloud. Now shape the cloud into a ring and put a floor on it - that's this situation.
The helicopter is undergoing the exact same circular acceleration landed and flying, with just a change from being lifted by the ground to lifted by the rotor.
>>7998698
Your doing good work. I hope in the afterlife you get compensated for your good work.
>>7990981
Are you figuring in the ground moving below it due to the station's size?
If you are on a ring similar to the OP image and you jump. You will shift slightly in the air. When you land you won't land with the same perfectly downward force you land with on Earth (due to the circumference size of the planet). Thus you need to compensate your landing slightly. The higher you jump, the more this occurs.
The reason this happens is the Coriolis effect. The Coriolis effect occurs on Earth too, but it is represented differently since there is real gravity and you are standing on the outside of the sphere instead of the inside of a relatively tiny ring.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coriolis_force
>>7998711
I'm a pilot. It will only happen because of how small the ring it. If the ring is extremely massive in diameter, that effect will be far less, but since there is actually no real gravity, things will still be "off".
>>8000014
>The reason this happens is the Coriolis effect.
You're greatly overstating how strong those effects are. Unless the ring is only a handful of meters across the effect won't be that significant. And on a very large ring (like the one in OP's image, or any ring with enough space to consider flying an aircraft) the effect probably wouldn't even be noticeable without tools.
>>8000593
The ring in the OP is absurdly small and certainly would not work having that amount of open water in it, let alone having normal helicopters flying around in it. You need a ring so large that the ground seems flat from your perspective. But, you still won't have real gravity and normal helicopters will still be pretty fucked.
we halo now
>>7990970
Yes, because you would still have your angular momentum, and the 'still' air would have that angular momentum.
As long as the air is spinning (and it would), helis would fly without a problem.
>>8001246
no it wouldnt, if you'd try to fly it in a normal way it would quite quickly collide with the ring, or "smack into the ground".
>>8001284
This is wrong. lrn2mechanics
>>8001285
please tell me where the force needed for the change of direction is coming from when the helicopter is no longer touching the ground.
>>8001284
You'd have to keep pitching up slightly all the time, but that's hardly an obstacle.
>>8001289
>if you'd try to fly it in a normal way
pitching up all the time isnt flying in a normal way.
>>8001294
Having to constantly adjust the attitude is hardly something special for a helicopter.
How big do you reckon the ring in OP's picture is?
10km across the diameter?
Alright, I did the maths. I'm no pilot, so I'll double-check this shit with my brother tomorrow. He knows more about aircraft than me.
For a small ring 1km across, a helicopter could hover fine, and could climb and descend with care. Forward movement above 10m/s (36km/h) would be a dumb idea.
For a ring roughly 10km across (my guess for OP's pic), a helicopter could hover, climb, and descend without much difficulty. However, flight should probably be restricted to moderate speeds: >25m/s (90km/h).
For a large ring ~100km across, flight is barely affected up to about 60m/s (216km/h), and probably manageable up to 100m/s (360km/h). Most helicopters could be taken up to their maximum speed, and skilled pilots could likely fly fixedwing planes.
For a Bishop Ring (1,000 km), supersonic flight would be plausible. Why you would want to is a mystery.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bishop_Ring_(habitat)
You'd need to constantly change the angle of the helicopter because you'd negate all forces acting up on it after a short time of trying to fly around. You'll end up needing to do loops all the time just to stay in one place because there's no real gravity to pull you in one direction.
>>8001725
No. That's not how it works.
No. Due to gravological interference, the helicopter's lift would be nullified, and air dynamics minimal. It would be extremely dangerous to try this.
