What are some realistic concepts for artificial gravity in space?
>>8203312
this is a pretty good one
>>8203312
Rotation
>>8203332
It's perfect.
Start building now.
>>8203332
This looks doable. Something tells me it'll also work just fine.
Why haven't we done this?
>>8203345
Rotation....wtf never heard of it. Please elaborate.
>>8203312
Several different methods could be used I assume:
>actual gravity:
we find something that is so incredibly dense that we can put in in the center of a space station and live in layers around it.
>Rotation:
we just rotate something like a ring and live on the underside, pressed against the surface with a force dependent on the speed of rotation.
>Magnetism:
We just build some magnetic shoes and are able to stick to metallic surfaces. This is probably the easiest to do, but it hasthe most problems: our body isnt actually pushed down on anything, so we have the health issues like before and if we jump up we would have a hard time getting back down to the floor.
>>8203363
I'm talking about centrifugal force
>>8203312
Two capsules tethered together, rotating. The only viable one.
>>8203662
this right here
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mars_Direct#Second_launch
>>8203366
Mini black hole?
>>8204270
More like a spoonful of closely packed neutrons.
>>8204334
Like a little piece of neutron star cake?
My only scientific studies come from history and discovery channel, so i don't know a shit about anything
>>8204334
Could you make a flat floor out of neutronium, without it trying to pull itself into a sphere? If so, consider artificial gravity *solved*.
>>8204343
And what if you make a ball of neutronium and then you star to throw shit until you form a decent ball to build shit around it, thinking about this, can you make a mini-miniplanet? With magnetic field?
>>8203312
Your pic related. /thread.
>>8204270
>>8203366
>>8204334
>>8204339
>>8204343
>>8204350
In order to make a small object with 1 g gravity, you still need a lot of goddamn mass. See:
https://what-if.xkcd.com/68/
You need 500 million tons to get 1 g on a small fucking boulder. Plus you run into problems with tidal forces and the fact that we don't fucking know how to make neutronium that's stable outside of a neutron star.
In comparison, the habitat you posted, the Stanford Torus masses 10 million tons, an order of magnitude less than said tiny boulder. Said habitat has much more livable area:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanford_torus
i cant really remember that well but The martian had a good representation of artificial gravity. it was a huge disc shaped ship that spun around the center and there would be gravity at the edges allowing them to walk along the circumference
>>8204408
Write a book about it.
yall never seent 2001, damn
>>8204334
Wouldnt it just explode though?
>>8204263
Does someone have the numbers to calculate the Coreolis force for this? If it is significant, are there any potential effects that would cause issues or be terribly annoying?
>>8203312
Centrifugal is the best we've got, which might not even be that bad. Spacecraft utilizing it are extremely reasonable to build and it's pretty likely that it could function perfectly as a gravity substitute, but we don't know because apparently for some reason it's a better use of money to take 2 years to drive a gimped robotic gokart the same distance it takes an able-bodied human to walk in a few hours.
>>8203312
With the proper engine, you could accelerate at exactly 1G for the first half of a trip. Then turn the ship 180 degrees and decelerate the 2nd half.
spin somethin' 'round real quicklike
>>8204700
Why wouldn't you turn it 360 and walk out the door?
>>8204664
it is significant enough to cause noticeable effects. For one, you can tell if you are walking in a spinward or anti-spinward direction. Climbing up results in a decrease in apparent gravity, while climbing down results in a decrease.
dealing with fluids gets interesting, but it's workable. Pic related
