Space station artifical gravity

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the concept of artificial gravity in rotating space stations, exploring the necessary rotation rates to achieve specific gravitational effects, particularly focusing on a 100-foot diameter station and a comparison with a larger 1000-foot diameter station. Participants also delve into the implications of such rotation on human activities and experiences within the station.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Debate/contested
  • Mathematical reasoning
  • Experimental/applied

Main Points Raised

  • One participant queries the rotation speed required to produce a 0.5g effect in a cylindrical space station, suggesting that traditional sports would be affected by the artificial gravity.
  • Another participant provides a formula for calculating the required angular velocity (w) and discusses the implications of linear speed on the ability to "launch" oneself into orbit.
  • There is a discussion about the Coriolis force and its effects on occupants moving within the rotating frame of the space station.
  • Some participants express confusion over calculations and terminology, particularly regarding the relationship between angular velocity, radius, and centrifugal acceleration.
  • One participant mentions the potential for disorientation due to Coriolis forces and how this could affect human behavior in a rotating environment.
  • Another participant introduces the term "Hallpike," explaining its relevance to the effects of rapid head movements in a rotating frame.
  • Several participants discuss the physiological responses to disorientation and the mechanics of balance in relation to angular acceleration.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express various viewpoints on the effects of rotation and the calculations involved, with some confusion and differing interpretations of the physics at play. There is no consensus on the implications of Coriolis forces or the specific effects of rotation on human activities.

Contextual Notes

Participants note the complexity of the calculations involved and the potential for misunderstanding due to the interplay of various forces in a rotating frame. The discussion highlights the need for clarity in definitions and assumptions when discussing artificial gravity.

Who May Find This Useful

This discussion may be of interest to those exploring the physics of rotating systems, the effects of artificial gravity on human physiology, and the implications for design and operation of space habitats.

  • #61
wysard said:
I guess. If you imagine two spheres one inside the other separated roller bearings one with a motor attached. Now spin the sphere(s) up to speed. You have 1 G at the equator and 0 G at the poles. If you then turn on the motor so it will make the inner sphere turn 1 revolution in 24 hours it would work. The trick here is that from the motor's frame of reference, neither sphere is spinning because both of them and the motor are all spinning at the same rate. As a result when you turn the motor on, it creates a uniform torque (theoretically) causing the spheres to rotate in opposite directions. If the motor works at right angles to the primary axis of spin then in a given day an object on the inner sphere would experience a constantly changing gravity cycling in a sine wave motion from 0 to 1 G twice per day.

Question is, how would you get in, or out of the colony?


EDIT:
As an afterthought, to ensure there are no "dead" spots or places that do not get their fair share of G forces you need to ensure that the speeds of the spheres are at least relatively prime. For example if you start both spheres spinning at some RPM that is prime, and then engage the motor to turn at some other prime RPM times 2 ( assuming both spheres have the same mass and the stator and rotor are the same mass...that pesky equal and opposite reaction thing...) then you should be good to go. Less of course the "how do I get in or out?" bit.

I admire your creative solution. This is all quite an elaborate design, one which I have a difficult time comprehending, but would it really take that much complexity?

Maybe it takes that harmonic calculation you mentioned in a previous post. Even in 1 rotating rigid sphere given torque, I would expect at some point a cycle to be established where the man (With 1G because he's initially standing at the equator) would return to the coordinates in space he started at. In that case does he return to feel 1G or does the introduction of torque forever take that force away?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #62
It's not really all that elaborate, just two spheres one inside the other, like a box inside a box. And the advantages it offers in terms of ease of modelling forces involved and a real world ability to isolate, monitor and control the torque force you specified makes it hard to beat, although I'd love to hear any other ideas.

As to the reason for the concern for the harmonics is that while in your visualization we can make the man start at 1G, and by some torque, float down to near zero and back in a day, try this experiment. Close your eyes and imagine the sphere you want, and then put a torque on it. But imagine you don't know where the man is standing! Suddenly instead of a truly simple solution that fits just where you originally imagined the man, you must now create a solution that always works, no matter where the "mystery man" is standing on the inside of the sphere.

By the same token, if you don't know where the man is standing, imagine he started instead of at the equator, he started somewhere around the 45th parallel. If you make the torque an even divisor of the original rate of spin it is VERY easy to wind up with a scenario where the man NEVER gets to neither Zero, nor to One. Those are the "dead zones".
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 22 ·
Replies
22
Views
6K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
22K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
4K
  • · Replies 19 ·
Replies
19
Views
6K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
5K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
6K