Great video, thanks. BUT - you don't have to have the full 1g artificial gravity. For the sake of health, something between a half g and 75%g, would be a really big help. On a journey to Mars, the crew could have the rotation rate, (or diameter), set to help them acclimatise to Martian gravity.
Good point, but I've never seen studies quantifying this. With only a few human-days spent on the moon, there's almost no data on human health between the 1g of earth and 0g on the ISS. We don't know whether the graph of animal health vs. gravity is logarithmic, linear, exponential, or other. We only know that 0g adds many challenges over 1g. If there are studies I don't know about, I hope you'll point me to them.
I don't think most people are going to want to spend much time in 38% the gravity of earth for the six months, a year and a half or so on Mars then another six months of reduced gravity for their vacation trip or retirement trip, assuming they live long enough for the return, compared to a space ship with one "G"1 If we don't have one "G" ships and stations, then Mars may well be the extent of human space travel! Space travel at one "G" to wherever, then hop down to the planet and do what ever one is doing then hop back up to the one "G" rotating base till the next away mission, then after all that, hop on a one "G: ship for home, or elsewhere! Earth must construct one "G" ships and space stations or mankind future will be, for the most part, here on earth!
@@GlenPetersonthere’s a whole psychological component to consider as well. Going to the bathroom in microgravity is awful. Not being able to shower is awful. Having to exercise like crazy every day is…less than great. So I think any ability to lessen those personal and social stressors would go a long way.
I believe his thought was basically that the center is significantly more dense which means that the core has much greater influence on gravity. Just like the stars are all out there, even during the day, but you can't see them because the light of the Sun is so intense that it drowns out the light of the stars.
@@mikemccormick6128it's not that much denser, and it is much smaller than the mantle, so the op is correct, and the video is simply wrong, as far as I can tell, sry
It should be noted that limited studies have shown that short radius rotation up to 23 rpm was rapidly adapted to within a few days. I suspect that spacecraft the size often shown in SciFi movies would in fact be more than adequate for the task at hand. The human body is a remarkably adaptable device.
23 is extreme nonetheless and I think it would impact productivity. 1 km stations are not a massive hurdle with steal cabling. We likely don't need a full 1G, either. 1 km station at 80% simulated gravity rotation could be very slow and have almost no perceivable Coriolis force
I totally agree. If humans can get used to NO gravity within 3 days, why couldn't humans adapt to slightly weird artificial gravity within a similar amount to time. And these huge wheels with 10 of meters diameter will be spinning at a much slower angular speed. Although those Coriolis forces will be pretty noticeable. Coming back to Earth will be strange.
Doesn't change the fact that the Coriolis force of short radius centrifuges would be very noticeable and affect common motions. Yes, we are highly adaptable but we still consider that 1 to 6 rpm should be the target for suitable spin gravity although that assumption as little practical experience to justify it.
@@i-love-space390Becoming "used to" micro gravity doesn't detract from the harmful effects of micro gravity to our biology. We believe that having some spin gravity would address the harmful effects of micro gravity which we have only been able to partially mitigate with strict exercise and medications. How much spin gravity and to what degree it needs to be similar to Earth's gravity is something for which we have no basis to judge. As an Engineer, I like to bound the problems so as an Engineering student, I asked myself how large does the radius of a centrifuge need to be for the gravity to change at the same rate that it does on Earth, to have the same first derivative, and the calculations showed that it had to be the radius of the Earth. The upper bound to exactly simulate Earth's gravity may be impractical so our spin gravity solutions will always be a compromise and selecting what that compromise should be will be our challenge. The proposals so far such as the spin gravity in Arthur C Clark's 2001 a Space Odyssey have used lunar gravity as a basis on little more than a hope that lunar colonization would not involve too many detriments due to the lower gravity and of course only use the probability of nausea from the Coriolis force has a guideline (typically a 50% of nausea till becoming accustomed to the forces involved). Whether these estimates are reasonable is yet to be seen but to accurately simulate Earth's gravity completely would take a centrifuge with the same radius as Earth's radius. It's likely that early spin gravity projects would be to try and measure the minimum amount of surface gravity and the maximum amount of unsettling Coriolis force can be tolerated when combined with strict exercise and medications and by tolerated, I do not mean becoming "used to" but by not having permanent detrimental effects to our biology (our astronauts do not fully regain their development losses from micro gravity at this time).
Fine for top-tier astronauts to do an exploratory mission. But raising your kids? Making cookies with Grandma? Human communities will not survive in any environment that doesn't have close to 1.0G. Spinning spaceships are at best a crude, temporary workaround. It's not even close, our best astronauts return from a year in space, exercising rigorously every day, and they can't even walk. God knows the changes it forces on metabolism, blood flow, DNA, or a million unknown factors, etc.
For 1g at 1rpm the radius would need to be 894.3 meters. Even you were 2 meters tall your head would still be experiencing .998g. That's an imperceptibly small difference. You experience a much much greater change in g forces when you ride in an elevator and most people are perfectly comfortable with that.
One way to reduce diameter of spinning objects and force required to get there is to reduce G from 1g to lets say 1/3g (like on Mars). Sufficient to keep folks on the ground and healthy.
Obviously there was no study about this (not possible to simulte 1/3 long-term), hence no evidence that 1/3g is enough. I might be wrong, my statement os just assumption based on fact that on ISS you can live mid-term without significant permanent health issues. Hence at least 1/3g woulh help our bodies a lot. But you are right - there is no evidence
Trained astronauts can tolerate a bigger gradient of artificial gravity than us mortals. A relatively small diameter station could form the core of a system fitted with inflatable sections.
@@bluesteel8376 Well, Elon will have to change his whole colonising Mars plans if 1/3 g is not enough. But he probably had a quick look at it before committing billions of dollars to the project. I would be surprised if NASA hadn't put rats or mice in a centrifuge set to simulate a fraction of 1 g. This would have likely been done on the ISS. I know they took rats up to measure bone and muscle loss. So the next logical step would be to increase the simulated gravity and chart the gravity versus bone/muscle loss. That would give a basis for extrapolation to expected human gravity requirements. Much easier to put mice in a centrifuge inside the ISS for a few months compared to doing the same thing for humans. Personally I would be surprised if the human body couldn't cope with reduced gravity. It copes with just about any other environmental factor being reduced. Temperature, air pressure, oxygen percentage, humidity, etc.
Earth's moon has just 1/6 G, and astronauts have stayed days without issue. Within the next 5 years, astronauts will be on missions that last longer on the lunar surface.
Actually, Isaac Newton showed that accelerating at 9.8 m/s^2 is the same acceleration as on Earth. Einstein claimed that such acceleration is indistinguishable from gravity.
In a centrifuge, your upper body will experience less force than your lower body. This gravity gradient will cause odd effects on the body so it won't be identical
@@KimmyJongUn this part of the video was discussing linear acceleration, not rotational acceleration. I take your point however Actually there is a measurable difference between gravitational and linear acceleration. In linear acceleration the acceleration is parallel at all positions in the elevator/rocket. However, in gravitational acceleration, the acceleration vectors are not parallel, they all point to the center of the Earth, Moon, Mars
@richardrigling4906 I'm guessing that that rate of velocity would be impossible to sustain for very long. I mean you would be going extremely fast in a very short amount of time. Also, the precision it would take to keep that exact rate over time sounds like it would be impossible. At least without quantum computers and AI.
In the early 1700s, Isaac Newtown performed a "Thought Experiment": Newton imagined that he dragged a large cannon up to a very tall mountain: Newton imagined that, if the cannon ball were large enough, and the mountain HIGH enough, when he fired the cannon ball, the ball would just go "falling", but never hit the Earth! Instead, Newton imagined that the Ball would just continue to circle the Earth. Newton had "imagined" the first artificial satellite!
Maybe we don't need exactly 1g, but say around 0.7g This would require a connecting rod only half a kilometer long, with a habitat on one end, and a large counterweight on the other end.
Dzhanibekov effect flips rotating habitats when mass is not completely balanced across the whole habitat. When it flips, it ruptures and everybody dies. Probably should figure it out before we launch and build one.
I imagine that if you had two rotating modules (or Space-X Starships) tethered to a central axis, the weight would need to be to be exactly balanced to prevent wobble & vibration. Weight balancing would probably be an issue with "wheel" space stations too.
It doesn't really matter if it's balanced or not, because in space there's nothing holding the axis in place except the inertia of the space station, which means it's pretty much impossible for vibrations to occur but it does create additional stress in the structure if there's also a large mass on the central axis
Yes, one method would be inertial sensors detecting shifts in the rotation coupled to the computer driving pumps which shift water or other liquid to maintain stable rotation
@@simonkovacic2585 Without a solid axis the barycenter is not automatically the true center. Rather than a spinning ring you could end up with a lighter part of the station orbiting a heavier part. A hula hoop. And if that motion started up it would quickly become difficult to control or maneuver the station.
Everyone always fails to mention in these artificial gravity videos that the only time a rotating spacestation works is when you are walking along the line of rotation. If you deviate from that line and say try to walk diagonally over to your desk or window you would be fighting forces that would make walking in a straight line almost impossible, not to mention how disorienting it would be. In movie 2001 for example they had addressed that to a small degree by making the footpath in the rotation module quite narrow with few choices for deviation from the plane of rotation.
the main problem, you either have a large enough station that somewhat mitigates these problem, or the entire structure is so small, that mostly irrelevant. but still, most early small rotating structures will have some strange stuff until we learn how to live and exist in them. similarly how the newer modules are much better in space usage and storage than the early ones on the iss, and the chinese clearly had the benefit of seeing what does not work on their own station.
I wouldn't imagine it would be much more difficult to acclimatise to a rotating space station than a ship at sea. It takes a few days to get used to it but after that it is usually fine. And it's not like you need everyone to be able to cope. If it is like boats at sea and there are some people that are never able to adapt and suffer from constant sea sickness. Then life as an astronaut probably isn't a good choice for them. Actually it should be easier to acclimatise as the forces would be consistent and predictable. Whereas the motions of a boat at sea are chaotic.
Which is why a large radius to reduce the proportion of Coriolis forces is needed. We have very little empirical basis to determine what the minimum radius should be and Arthur C Clarke made wild assumptions such as assuming lunar gravity would be sufficient for surface gravity and reducing the probability of initial nausea to 50% would be an acceptable reduction in Coriolis forces. Arthur C Clark was very bright but had very little basis for his designs. Until we try spin gravity out in a space habitat to collect some data points, we too will have very little basis for our design decisions. We can expect our first few spin gravity solutions to be insufficient but providing valuable data for future designs.
@@johnwang9914 At the end of the day it depends on the scenario. On a trip to Mars the aim is to have people arrive safely and in good health. If they have to endure some months of discomfort then so be it. Throughout history people have managed to deal with much worse. As long as there is sufficient simulated gravity to avoid any bone or muscle loss then job done. It doesn't have to be a cruise ship with swimming pools and 5 star restaurants. Even if you told people that to get to Mars they would likely have to endure 6 months of motion sickness you would still get 100 volunteers for every seat. Now if you were talking about an orbital space station where crew on orbit durations may stretch into years or decades then certainly making efforts towards comfort as well as health would be a worthwhile investment.
Why would the Core be the main component of Earth's Gravity Well? It's the total sum of the Earth not just the Core. Now if your talking about Earth's Magnetic Field, then the Solid Core and the interaction with the Molten Core would be your primary components.
this is my 3rd video in, and ive had to double take several times in each video. this guy just talks to talk. not saying ii know anything, but he surely doesnt either
Now think about this: at the center of the earth the force of gravity is...ZERO! The force of gravity from the earth is maximum at the earth's surface. As you descend into the earth (via a hypothetical elevator) the gravitation will become less. This is because some of the mass of the earth is above you cancelling some of the mass 'below' you . At the center it all cancels. The pressure at that point would be huge, and the temperature is 9000 degrees.
0:53 You showed a Football 🏈 as an example of gravity while I’m watching a Football 🏈 game (Commanders Vs. Broncos Sept 17 2023). Coincidence, I think not!
I think we are too obsessed with getting artificial gravity to 1g. If we simply went for 2/3g then the station wouldn’t have to rotate as fast and therefore would need to be as large. An exercise regimen should make up for muscle loss in a reduced gravity setting and re acclimating to gravity on earth shouldn’t be as big a deal.
Most treatments of spin gravity for space life support are like, "Head protection will never be a thing because it's possible to hollow out a watermelon, but they never have eye holes where you would need them". This one starts out that way, but at the end it clues in a little. Yes, you wouldn't build a whole ring, just a cabin on the end of a rotating string. There might be another cabin at the other end, but that's not the only option. Immediately above the cabin, the string extends a few kilometres, let's say 3.5, up to the spin axis. Continuing along it, past the axis, we are going down again, and 3.5 km on the other side, we are again at the one-gee level. An equally heavy cabin there would be a good counterweight. But it's also possible for the string to extend beyond the one-gee level, out to maybe ten gees, 35 km out, and then the counterweight is just the string. And because much of it is at multiple gees, it is less massive. I call this the long-heavy-tail option for spin gravity.
Not to be a party pooper... but the reality is, we're not doing any interstellar travel for centuries, if not millenniums. Physics being the limiting factor... perhaps technology can overcome physics, but I find it unlikely. Hence why we don't see alien spaceships all over the galaxy.
Your point is well taken. However, if history has shown us one thing it's that predicting the future is a difficult thing. Many people in the early years of the United States thought it would take a thousand years to colonize America. Obviously, it didn't take that long, and since that time not only has the U.S. been colonized but there have been great efforts put in place (National Parks Service for example) to preserve areas of nature from increasing human development. The reason for the delve into U.S. history is the change that happened between that time, and now. The change I specifically want to point out is the increased ease of travel over long distances. The first transcontinental railroad (Pacific Railroad) built between 1863 and 1869 is a great example of the beginning of the change I speak of. One could argue that the SpaceX Starship could serve a similar function (in our solar system) as the transcontinental railroad did in the mid-19th century. That being said you are correct that traveling beyond our solar system would be a feat far beyond what current technology is able to accomplish. But it wouldn't be the first perceived technological barrier in recent history. Anyway, just food for thought. Either way, the journey is half the reward if you have the patience!
Of curse it's quite possible that you don't need one full G to live healthfully. And that had better be the case if we plan on living on Mars or the Moon, or "colonies" there are non-starters. Any idea if this is being researched and if so, what that number might be? If so, that is the G force ships and stations could be built to.
When I was an engineering student, my sister was working on a research project in the biology department that was being prepared for the space shuttle to investigate the development of African frogs in microgravity. I commented that perhaps the first derivative of gravity, how it varies with distance that could be pertinent and hence I asked myself how large a radius would be needed for artificial gravity by "centrifugal forces" to have the same first derivative and the calculations showed that it would be the radius of the Earth itself. Although artificial spin gravity is our best and only option, it will never be a perfect replacement. The Challenger disaster postponed my sister's experiment so a similar experiment by another University made it to launch before hers (surprisingly using the same frog species).
I wonder if we can use the artificial gravity modules as sleeping quarters to give our bodies a break, then spend the rest of the journey in the zero g center of the craft?
If people on such a module with artificial gravity spend most of their time at 0 G then there is same problem with bone loss and other physiologic effects that would long term presence in space impossible.
Sleeping (on earth) is used to simulate micro gravity, having a slight head low and feet up position. For simulating gravity is space it's best done while standing, or exercising. The biggest issue with microgravity is bone loss and muscle loss. Applying forces (Gs) when awake helps maintain.
Sleeping quarters on a deep space mission would be in the centre of the ship and heavily shielded... Radiation shielding is top priority, whereas simulating gravity is as simple as tethering a pair of ships together and spinning them up.. :)
@@EveryoneWhoUsesThisTV Theoretically speaking yes, but as people like Scott Manley have said the devil is in the details. That was my take on his description of the problems with creating artificial gravity in space.
Creating artificial gravity should be on the top of every institution research - although spinning a budy is the simplest of the concepts, it starts to be impractical fast. - - thanks for the interesting video.
If the starships have retractable docking hatches that extend out and dock with eachother, with a mechanism on the docking hatch that can adjust the angle for however many starships are docked with one another in a circle. So id say the minimum would be five starships and the maximum could be twenty thirtys or more starship hatched together in a large ring, with the front point of each starship pointing to the center of the ring.
Congratulations, you just explained Dr Zubrins centrifugal artificial gravity generator. But all you need is two Habs, steel cable, and directional thrusters.
Many words have multiple definitions. This is true here with the word "gravity". 1) the attractive force between masses. 2) the sensation produced by acceleration which simulates gravity. It isn't Microgravity as many have come to call it because the attraction of the ISS just a few hundred miles higher than someone on Earth is nearly the same. Its the fact that the ISS is falling at the same rate as the curvature of the earth that makes you weightless. Fight inertia and you feel G-force. Falling is weightlessness even if its the few seconds in a fast car over a bump in the road. For the moment you're weightless (even on Earth) because you aren't fighting the pull of gravity or inertia. "Microgravity" is a non-scientific term used for less scientific people. Even some astronauts incorrectly use it. The 6ft difference between one side of the ISS and the other might require a microsopic diff in orbital speed but the gravity difference of 6ft is next to nothing. What fraction of 4000mi (1-G) to the core is 6 feet?
In fact, during the rocket ride into orbit you fight gravity (but more importantly Inertia) right on up until the engines turn off. This acceleration is usually 3-times the pull of gravity on Earth's surface (an acceleration of 22mph increased velocity every second for about 12-1/2min). You feel 3G's all the way up to orbit then the engines turn off and you're just falling again -- that's weightlessness again. But every time you change course in space you feel G-forces (fighting Inertia not Gravity).
Using the term "microgravity" as people use it one could make a fast turn in a car and feel "microgravity" pulling you to the side of you car. Referring to Def2 which is "any change from an Inertial course of motion"
A circular spaceship with a 1 km diameter would be difficult to make, but they could make a spaceship out of 2 parts, say living space and utilities, and connect them with a 1 km cable, and make that spin around. Much more affordable.
The coriolis effect is not something extreme and unimagineable, it's just how the centrifuge tries to simulate earths gravity, when you throw something up it will fall down, if the ring is large enought when you throw something up it will fall straight back to where it was thrown, just like on earth.
Lol, I caught that too. No disrespect to Blue Origin, but the New Shepherd capsule is basically just a rocket plane without wings. I'm looking forward to when they built the first New Glenn rocket. That, at least in my mind, will be their first true spaceship.
Exactly right. To become a multi-planet civilization, gravity is a prerequisite. Actually if we could control gravity, we wouldn't need the other planets.
Would an astronauts body benefit from a daily dose of gravity while exercising for an hour daily? They could create a small pod, tie it to some long cables and spin it, put a treadmill in there and do calisthenics daily?
Whenever someone says "zero G", they really mean *weightlessness* not microgravity. The force in the orbit is not much less than on the planet surface, nothing micro about it.
This channel gets shit wrong all the time but actually microgravity is correct here. Astronauts experience a reaction force of ~10^-6 g due to things such as atmospheric drag or solar radiation pressure on the spacecraft/EVA suit and it'll never truly be 0 g
@@KimmyJongUn 0-g would be the point between Earth and Moon where each body's gravity is cancelled out by the other... If you ignore the gravity of the Sun, planets, stars etc.
The research i have done. About artificial gravity. The speed and diameter of the module is important. To get 17% gravity or moon gravity you need a radius of 300 feet with ruffly 2+ rotation a minute. But the bigger the diameter of the slower the rotation needs to be less motion sickness.
Think more like a mile or more in diameter for a serious artificial world. There are currently plans to build space stations on that scale, but even to do that, we have to mine and manufacture the parts on the Moon. There's no way we can lift all that stuff from Earth, even with a hundred Starships. The cost makes it impractical.
Gravity is not pull, it is a push. It is a result of being caught in the flow of uncompressed aether/space, that flows towards compressed aether/Matter. Everything is pressure mediation.
Maybe the answer is to find an object in space that is already 1km wide, e.g. an asteroid, harness it and build our habitat on the asteroid. Then rotate ite at the required speed and then propell it to where we wanted to go?
You can connect the two parts with long cable, also i think that we maybe we can use smaller gravity, it maybe still cause problem in long term but it at list will make the life of the astrounots mach easier because they can actually use normal toilets for example
I don't like the term, micro gravity. If you had an accelerometer, it would be reading zero. I realise that gravity is all around us from different sources, the sun, the moon, other planets, but we can't feel that inside a spacecraft because everything is moving at the same speed.
I think a 1km space station would be very doable just off of the moon alone. The moon likely has more than enough resources and with the reduced gravity and lack of atmosphere, getting massive prefabbed parts into orbit would be a breeze. With no atmosphere you can just use a sky crane. After the moon gets the capability to manufacture ships, we will see sci fi like space ships made there.
On a trip to and from Mars, a module set aside for artificial gravity could be used a few hours per day by astronauts, similar to people on earth going to the gym to exercise. This gravity simulation module could be suspended from the main craft at the end of a tunnel, or a tether, with ingress enabled by traveling through the tunnel, or sliding while attached to the tether. The module could hold about a half dozen crew members at a time -- exercising, or watching videos and betting on football games. It could by swung so that centripetal force would create the artificial 1-G, or the Martian 0.38 Gs. No permanent construction project of the magnitude of a 1km station would be needed, since the module is used only as needed.
I think the more critical thing to achieve this idea during the flight is how the spacecraft can continuously absorb enough energy. The realization of artificial gravity will definitely consume a certain amount of energy resources, and to maintain such consumption, it must be extracted from the outside. If this is not possible, it is obviously more reliable and practical to prepare exercise equipment.
Microgravity is not the biggest challenge to long duration space flights above the Van Allan Belts. It's Galactic Cosmic Radiation. As this very good video illustrates, MG is quite easy to mitigagte. GCR is not.
I have always wondered if there is any theoretical science behind the "magical" nonrotational artificial gravity so popular in science fiction. It seems like it would be a good tactical tool to turn off the artificial gravity in Star Trek. Strap in as your enemy beams themselves onto the ship but they are suspended in zero gravity. I would think it could be localized and anyone not wearing a Star Trek communicator could experience 10x the normal gravity.
You can't just spin two or three Starships, it must be a certain diameter spinning at a particular speed for it to work correctly. It's not like spinning a YO-YO.
I think a robotic refinery in geo orbit to melt down old sats and debris would solve that problem then a robotic fab plant to build habitats to solve that problem would be great.
1:00 Missed opportunity for a Star Wars reference "It’s an energy field created by all living things. It surrounds us and penetrates us. It binds the galaxy together." :(
Everything is under the influence of gravity, even things in orbit. The difference is things in orbit are falling around the planet fast enough to cancel out the gravitational influence and therefore experience zero g forces. Gravity and g force are different things.
What NASA or Space X can do, is to build inflatable modules and deploy and test on the ISS, when sufficient testing and improvements are done, then send to the Moon together with the Lunar Gateway station.
I know this might sound real "science fiction-any", but I wonder if in the far future, after lunar and martian bases have been established, some people who decide to populate space stations, might decide to live their whole lives in microgravity? Studies have been done to observe the effects of microgravity on subjects who have spent as much as a little over a year in orbit. The effects seemed to be cumulative, the longer the subject spent in microgravity. However, what would happen to a person who spent the rest of their lives in microgravity? Could humans actually live whole lives in microgravity, from birth until death? Could the human organism adapt to such a condition? Could the human body be surgically ( using nanobots from inside ) adapted to microgravity?
I understand that folks don't come here for a physics lesson, but is better not to actively give the wrong explanation why low "g" environments are obtained in orbit. Like you do at about 1:34. It is not the drop off of Earth's gravitational field, it is being in free fall with no air resistance. Stick the numbers into Newton's law. They are almost 400 years old and the formulas are given in high school physics. How high is the ISS orbit? What is the radius of the earth? The gravitational field of earth is almost the same at sea level as it is at the ISS!
Asking ChatGPT to do the calculations and explain the results : The gravitational field strength at the altitude of the International Space Station (ISS), approximately 400 kilometers above Earth's surface, is about 8.69 m/s 2 This compares to the standard 9.81 m/s 2 at sea level. This calculation shows that while the ISS is in a microgravity environment, allowing for the phenomena of weightlessness experienced by the astronauts, the gravitational pull it experiences is not drastically less than on Earth's surface-approximately 89% of the surface value. The sensation of weightlessness is primarily due to the ISS being in a continuous free fall towards Earth, while its horizontal velocity is sufficient to keep it in orbit.
The spaceships were wrongly oriented. When we take into question the layout of levels in the habitable part of spaceship, those should be pointing on each other by the bows ("noses").
Einsteins gedankenekspiriment tells us that in terms of gravitation there would be no difference between 1g on earth and 1g in a spacestation or 1g on an accelerating rocket
![ละลาย (LALALYE) - DAOU PITTAYA ต้าห์อู๋ พิทยา [OFFICIAL MV]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/wo6r9TgausI/mqdefault.jpg)
Great video, thanks. BUT - you don't have to have the full 1g artificial gravity. For the sake of health, something between a half g and 75%g, would be a really big help. On a journey to Mars, the crew could have the rotation rate, (or diameter), set to help them acclimatise to Martian gravity.
Good point, but I've never seen studies quantifying this. With only a few human-days spent on the moon, there's almost no data on human health between the 1g of earth and 0g on the ISS. We don't know whether the graph of animal health vs. gravity is logarithmic, linear, exponential, or other. We only know that 0g adds many challenges over 1g. If there are studies I don't know about, I hope you'll point me to them.
I don't think most people are going to want to spend much time in 38% the gravity of earth for the six months, a year and a half or so on Mars then another six months of reduced gravity for their vacation trip or retirement trip, assuming they live long enough for the return, compared to a space ship with one "G"1
If we don't have one "G" ships and stations, then Mars may well be the extent of human space travel! Space travel at one "G" to wherever, then hop down to the planet and do what ever one is doing then hop back up to the one "G" rotating base till the next away mission, then after all that, hop on a one "G: ship for home, or elsewhere!
Earth must construct one "G" ships and space stations or mankind future will be, for the most part, here on earth!
For reference gravity on our Moon is only 1/6th of Earth, or 0.166 G. Adapting to/from microgravity was not an issue when staying for days at a time.
@@GlenPetersonthere’s a whole psychological component to consider as well. Going to the bathroom in microgravity is awful. Not being able to shower is awful. Having to exercise like crazy every day is…less than great. So I think any ability to lessen those personal and social stressors would go a long way.
All of the mass under our feet contributes to the Earth's gravity -- not just the core.
Thank you I was thinking the same thing!
Yes exactly. Even objects on the surface contribute to gravity. Heck for that matter even we contribute to gravity.
@@doncarlin9081 Yep, everybody is attracted to everybody else. 😁
I believe his thought was basically that the center is significantly more dense which means that the core has much greater influence on gravity. Just like the stars are all out there, even during the day, but you can't see them because the light of the Sun is so intense that it drowns out the light of the stars.
@@mikemccormick6128it's not that much denser, and it is much smaller than the mantle, so the op is correct, and the video is simply wrong, as far as I can tell, sry
It should be noted that limited studies have shown that short radius rotation up to 23 rpm was rapidly adapted to within a few days. I suspect that spacecraft the size often shown in SciFi movies would in fact be more than adequate for the task at hand. The human body is a remarkably adaptable device.
23 is extreme nonetheless and I think it would impact productivity. 1 km stations are not a massive hurdle with steal cabling. We likely don't need a full 1G, either. 1 km station at 80% simulated gravity rotation could be very slow and have almost no perceivable Coriolis force
I totally agree. If humans can get used to NO gravity within 3 days, why couldn't humans adapt to slightly weird artificial gravity within a similar amount to time. And these huge wheels with 10 of meters diameter will be spinning at a much slower angular speed. Although those Coriolis forces will be pretty noticeable. Coming back to Earth will be strange.
Doesn't change the fact that the Coriolis force of short radius centrifuges would be very noticeable and affect common motions. Yes, we are highly adaptable but we still consider that 1 to 6 rpm should be the target for suitable spin gravity although that assumption as little practical experience to justify it.
@@i-love-space390Becoming "used to" micro gravity doesn't detract from the harmful effects of micro gravity to our biology. We believe that having some spin gravity would address the harmful effects of micro gravity which we have only been able to partially mitigate with strict exercise and medications. How much spin gravity and to what degree it needs to be similar to Earth's gravity is something for which we have no basis to judge. As an Engineer, I like to bound the problems so as an Engineering student, I asked myself how large does the radius of a centrifuge need to be for the gravity to change at the same rate that it does on Earth, to have the same first derivative, and the calculations showed that it had to be the radius of the Earth. The upper bound to exactly simulate Earth's gravity may be impractical so our spin gravity solutions will always be a compromise and selecting what that compromise should be will be our challenge. The proposals so far such as the spin gravity in Arthur C Clark's 2001 a Space Odyssey have used lunar gravity as a basis on little more than a hope that lunar colonization would not involve too many detriments due to the lower gravity and of course only use the probability of nausea from the Coriolis force has a guideline (typically a 50% of nausea till becoming accustomed to the forces involved). Whether these estimates are reasonable is yet to be seen but to accurately simulate Earth's gravity completely would take a centrifuge with the same radius as Earth's radius. It's likely that early spin gravity projects would be to try and measure the minimum amount of surface gravity and the maximum amount of unsettling Coriolis force can be tolerated when combined with strict exercise and medications and by tolerated, I do not mean becoming "used to" but by not having permanent detrimental effects to our biology (our astronauts do not fully regain their development losses from micro gravity at this time).
Fine for top-tier astronauts to do an exploratory mission. But raising your kids? Making cookies with Grandma? Human communities will not survive in any environment that doesn't have close to 1.0G. Spinning spaceships are at best a crude, temporary workaround.
It's not even close, our best astronauts return from a year in space, exercising rigorously every day, and they can't even walk. God knows the changes it forces on metabolism, blood flow, DNA, or a million unknown factors, etc.
For 1g at 1rpm the radius would need to be 894.3 meters. Even you were 2 meters tall your head would still be experiencing .998g. That's an imperceptibly small difference. You experience a much much greater change in g forces when you ride in an elevator and most people are perfectly comfortable with that.
Even if you climbed 50 meters closer to the center of rotation you would still feel 94.4% earth gravity.
One way to reduce diameter of spinning objects and force required to get there is to reduce G from 1g to lets say 1/3g (like on Mars). Sufficient to keep folks on the ground and healthy.
What evidence do you have that 1/3 g would keep a person healthy?
Obviously there was no study about this (not possible to simulte 1/3 long-term), hence no evidence that 1/3g is enough.
I might be wrong, my statement os just assumption based on fact that on ISS you can live mid-term without significant permanent health issues. Hence at least 1/3g woulh help our bodies a lot.
But you are right - there is no evidence
Trained astronauts can tolerate a bigger gradient of artificial gravity than us mortals. A relatively small diameter station could form the core of a system fitted with inflatable sections.
@@bluesteel8376 Well, Elon will have to change his whole colonising Mars plans if 1/3 g is not enough. But he probably had a quick look at it before committing billions of dollars to the project.
I would be surprised if NASA hadn't put rats or mice in a centrifuge set to simulate a fraction of 1 g. This would have likely been done on the ISS. I know they took rats up to measure bone and muscle loss. So the next logical step would be to increase the simulated gravity and chart the gravity versus bone/muscle loss. That would give a basis for extrapolation to expected human gravity requirements. Much easier to put mice in a centrifuge inside the ISS for a few months compared to doing the same thing for humans.
Personally I would be surprised if the human body couldn't cope with reduced gravity. It copes with just about any other environmental factor being reduced. Temperature, air pressure, oxygen percentage, humidity, etc.
Earth's moon has just 1/6 G, and astronauts have stayed days without issue. Within the next 5 years, astronauts will be on missions that last longer on the lunar surface.
Actually, Isaac Newton showed that accelerating at 9.8 m/s^2 is the same acceleration as on Earth. Einstein claimed that such acceleration is indistinguishable from gravity.
In a centrifuge, your upper body will experience less force than your lower body. This gravity gradient will cause odd effects on the body so it won't be identical
@@KimmyJongUn this part of the video was discussing linear acceleration, not rotational acceleration.
I take your point however
Actually there is a measurable difference between gravitational and linear acceleration. In linear acceleration the acceleration is parallel at all positions in the elevator/rocket. However, in gravitational acceleration, the acceleration vectors are not parallel, they all point to the center of the Earth, Moon, Mars
@@KimmyJongUnSo you make the centrifuge larger so it can spin slower and that effect become negligible.
@richardrigling4906 I'm guessing that that rate of velocity would be impossible to sustain for very long. I mean you would be going extremely fast in a very short amount of time. Also, the precision it would take to keep that exact rate over time sounds like it would be impossible. At least without quantum computers and AI.
In the early 1700s, Isaac Newtown performed a "Thought Experiment":
Newton imagined that he dragged a large cannon up to a very tall mountain:
Newton imagined that, if the cannon ball were large enough, and the mountain HIGH enough, when he fired the cannon ball, the ball would just go "falling", but never hit the Earth!
Instead, Newton imagined that the Ball would just continue to circle the Earth.
Newton had "imagined" the first artificial satellite!
Maybe we don't need exactly 1g, but say around 0.7g This would require a connecting rod only half a kilometer long, with a habitat on one end, and a large counterweight on the other end.
Dzhanibekov effect flips rotating habitats when mass is not completely balanced across the whole habitat. When it flips, it ruptures and everybody dies. Probably should figure it out before we launch and build one.
I imagine that if you had two rotating modules (or Space-X Starships) tethered to a central axis, the weight would need to be to be exactly balanced to prevent wobble & vibration. Weight balancing would probably be an issue with "wheel" space stations too.
It doesn't really matter if it's balanced or not, because in space there's nothing holding the axis in place except the inertia of the space station, which means it's pretty much impossible for vibrations to occur but it does create additional stress in the structure if there's also a large mass on the central axis
Yes, one method would be inertial sensors detecting shifts in the rotation coupled to the computer driving pumps which shift water or other liquid to maintain stable rotation
@@simonkovacic2585vibrations can be a big problem in space without additional damping from atmosphere, but only slight material damping
@@simonkovacic2585 Without a solid axis the barycenter is not automatically the true center. Rather than a spinning ring you could end up with a lighter part of the station orbiting a heavier part. A hula hoop. And if that motion started up it would quickly become difficult to control or maneuver the station.
If you had two spacecraft connected by a tether they would just spin around the balance point wherever it was.
I have been waiting for spinning gravity video from someone for months, thanks!
Same gonna make one in kerbal 😊
Everyone always fails to mention in these artificial gravity videos that the only time a rotating spacestation works is when you are walking along the line of rotation. If you deviate from that line and say try to walk diagonally over to your desk or window you would be fighting forces that would make walking in a straight line almost impossible, not to mention how disorienting it would be. In movie 2001 for example they had addressed that to a small degree by making the footpath in the rotation module quite narrow with few choices for deviation from the plane of rotation.
Arthur C Clarke was a smart cookie.
the main problem, you either have a large enough station that somewhat mitigates these problem, or the entire structure is so small, that mostly irrelevant. but still, most early small rotating structures will have some strange stuff until we learn how to live and exist in them. similarly how the newer modules are much better in space usage and storage than the early ones on the iss, and the chinese clearly had the benefit of seeing what does not work on their own station.
I wouldn't imagine it would be much more difficult to acclimatise to a rotating space station than a ship at sea. It takes a few days to get used to it but after that it is usually fine. And it's not like you need everyone to be able to cope. If it is like boats at sea and there are some people that are never able to adapt and suffer from constant sea sickness. Then life as an astronaut probably isn't a good choice for them.
Actually it should be easier to acclimatise as the forces would be consistent and predictable. Whereas the motions of a boat at sea are chaotic.
Which is why a large radius to reduce the proportion of Coriolis forces is needed. We have very little empirical basis to determine what the minimum radius should be and Arthur C Clarke made wild assumptions such as assuming lunar gravity would be sufficient for surface gravity and reducing the probability of initial nausea to 50% would be an acceptable reduction in Coriolis forces. Arthur C Clark was very bright but had very little basis for his designs. Until we try spin gravity out in a space habitat to collect some data points, we too will have very little basis for our design decisions. We can expect our first few spin gravity solutions to be insufficient but providing valuable data for future designs.
@@johnwang9914 At the end of the day it depends on the scenario. On a trip to Mars the aim is to have people arrive safely and in good health. If they have to endure some months of discomfort then so be it. Throughout history people have managed to deal with much worse. As long as there is sufficient simulated gravity to avoid any bone or muscle loss then job done. It doesn't have to be a cruise ship with swimming pools and 5 star restaurants.
Even if you told people that to get to Mars they would likely have to endure 6 months of motion sickness you would still get 100 volunteers for every seat.
Now if you were talking about an orbital space station where crew on orbit durations may stretch into years or decades then certainly making efforts towards comfort as well as health would be a worthwhile investment.
@3:00 downtown Houston. From right to left. Centerpoint Energy Plaza, JP Morgan Chase Tower and Enterprise Plaza
Your videos are amazing. Please keep them coming.
Why would the Core be the main component of Earth's Gravity Well? It's the total sum of the Earth not just the Core. Now if your talking about Earth's Magnetic Field, then the Solid Core and the interaction with the Molten Core would be your primary components.
Yeah the mass of the core is not the most significant part of Earth's mass. That part of the video is not true unfortunately
this is my 3rd video in, and ive had to double take several times in each video. this guy just talks to talk. not saying ii know anything, but he surely doesnt either
using a cable between two vehicles has actually been done during the 60s Gemini program
It was experimented with, but tethers in space have been proven to be very problematic.
in the uk we used to use mopeds to spin them merry go rounds, i think there are still videos on here they are hilarious have a look 😂
Now think about this: at the center of the earth the force of gravity is...ZERO! The force of gravity from the earth is maximum at the earth's surface. As you descend into the earth (via a hypothetical elevator) the gravitation will become less. This is because some of the mass of the earth is above you cancelling some of the mass 'below' you . At the center it all cancels. The pressure at that point would be huge, and the temperature is 9000 degrees.
Great video, I'd say that artificial gravity is the #1 issue that needs to be solved before thinking about space exploration as well as going to Mars.
"I know u guys are not here for a physics lecture"
Proceeds to give us a lecture on gravity physics 😂
0:53
You showed a Football 🏈 as an example of gravity while I’m watching a Football 🏈 game (Commanders Vs. Broncos Sept 17 2023). Coincidence, I think not!
Love your content!! Great work!!
Absolutly awesome…. a good, simply and straightforword explanation, and you managed to cover it all in just 14min… Tank’s👍
Yeah, too bad it was wrong!
I think we are too obsessed with getting artificial gravity to 1g. If we simply went for 2/3g then the station wouldn’t have to rotate as fast and therefore would need to be as large. An exercise regimen should make up for muscle loss in a reduced gravity setting and re acclimating to gravity on earth shouldn’t be as big a deal.
Most treatments of spin gravity for space life support are like, "Head protection will never be a thing because it's possible to hollow out a watermelon, but they never have eye holes where you would need them".
This one starts out that way, but at the end it clues in a little. Yes, you wouldn't build a whole ring, just a cabin on the end of a rotating string.
There might be another cabin at the other end, but that's not the only option. Immediately above the cabin, the string extends a few kilometres, let's say 3.5, up to the spin axis. Continuing along it, past the axis, we are going down again, and 3.5 km on the other side, we are again at the one-gee level. An equally heavy cabin there would be a good counterweight.
But it's also possible for the string to extend beyond the one-gee level, out to maybe ten gees, 35 km out, and then the counterweight is just the string. And because much of it is at multiple gees, it is less massive. I call this the long-heavy-tail option for spin gravity.
Thank you
Barf, that's what spin causes, Barf !!!!
Not to be a party pooper... but the reality is, we're not doing any interstellar travel for centuries, if not millenniums. Physics being the limiting factor... perhaps technology can overcome physics, but I find it unlikely. Hence why we don't see alien spaceships all over the galaxy.
Your point is well taken. However, if history has shown us one thing it's that predicting the future is a difficult thing. Many people in the early years of the United States thought it would take a thousand years to colonize America. Obviously, it didn't take that long, and since that time not only has the U.S. been colonized but there have been great efforts put in place (National Parks Service for example) to preserve areas of nature from increasing human development. The reason for the delve into U.S. history is the change that happened between that time, and now. The change I specifically want to point out is the increased ease of travel over long distances. The first transcontinental railroad (Pacific Railroad) built between 1863 and 1869 is a great example of the beginning of the change I speak of. One could argue that the SpaceX Starship could serve a similar function (in our solar system) as the transcontinental railroad did in the mid-19th century.
That being said you are correct that traveling beyond our solar system would be a feat far beyond what current technology is able to accomplish. But it wouldn't be the first perceived technological barrier in recent history.
Anyway, just food for thought. Either way, the journey is half the reward if you have the patience!
Of curse it's quite possible that you don't need one full G to live healthfully. And that had better be the case if we plan on living on Mars or the Moon, or "colonies" there are non-starters. Any idea if this is being researched and if so, what that number might be? If so, that is the G force ships and stations could be built to.
My guy you need your own TV show 💪
He already has one.
When I was an engineering student, my sister was working on a research project in the biology department that was being prepared for the space shuttle to investigate the development of African frogs in microgravity. I commented that perhaps the first derivative of gravity, how it varies with distance that could be pertinent and hence I asked myself how large a radius would be needed for artificial gravity by "centrifugal forces" to have the same first derivative and the calculations showed that it would be the radius of the Earth itself. Although artificial spin gravity is our best and only option, it will never be a perfect replacement.
The Challenger disaster postponed my sister's experiment so a similar experiment by another University made it to launch before hers (surprisingly using the same frog species).
I wonder if we can use the artificial gravity modules as sleeping quarters to give our bodies a break, then spend the rest of the journey in the zero g center of the craft?
If people on such a module with artificial gravity spend most of their time at 0 G then there is same problem with bone loss and other physiologic effects that would long term presence in space impossible.
Sleeping (on earth) is used to simulate micro gravity, having a slight head low and feet up position.
For simulating gravity is space it's best done while standing, or exercising. The biggest issue with microgravity is bone loss and muscle loss. Applying forces (Gs) when awake helps maintain.
Sleeping quarters on a deep space mission would be in the centre of the ship and heavily shielded...
Radiation shielding is top priority, whereas simulating gravity is as simple as tethering a pair of ships together and spinning them up.. :)
@@EveryoneWhoUsesThisTV Theoretically speaking yes, but as people like Scott Manley have said the devil is in the details. That was my take on his description of the problems with creating artificial gravity in space.
Also, don't forget the second, counter-rotating mass that is required for your animation example.
Creating artificial gravity should be on the top of every institution research - although spinning a budy is the simplest of the concepts, it starts to be impractical fast. - - thanks for the interesting video.
If the starships have retractable docking hatches that extend out and dock with eachother, with a mechanism on the docking hatch that can adjust the angle for however many starships are docked with one another in a circle. So id say the minimum would be five starships and the maximum could be twenty thirtys or more starship hatched together in a large ring, with the front point of each starship pointing to the center of the ring.
Congratulations, you just explained Dr Zubrins centrifugal artificial gravity generator. But all you need is two Habs, steel cable, and directional thrusters.
Hey, I like your videos. Keep them coming. You're a good teacher. I like to learn things that my questions could not answer. So thank you ,
Sub orbital capsules like the NS or the Mercury Redstone are still real spaceships since they really go into real space.
Wow this is so cool....love the explanation of gravity.
Still how can you add artificial gravity anything between a large asteroid, moon, or a planet?
7:26 skip the intro
Many words have multiple definitions. This is true here with the word "gravity".
1) the attractive force between masses.
2) the sensation produced by acceleration which simulates gravity.
It isn't Microgravity as many have come to call it because the attraction of the ISS just a few hundred miles higher than someone on Earth is nearly the same. Its the fact that the ISS is falling at the same rate as the curvature of the earth that makes you weightless. Fight inertia and you feel G-force. Falling is weightlessness even if its the few seconds in a fast car over a bump in the road. For the moment you're weightless (even on Earth) because you aren't fighting the pull of gravity or inertia.
"Microgravity" is a non-scientific term used for less scientific people. Even some astronauts incorrectly use it.
The 6ft difference between one side of the ISS and the other might require a microsopic diff in orbital speed but the gravity difference of 6ft is next to nothing. What fraction of 4000mi (1-G) to the core is 6 feet?
In fact, during the rocket ride into orbit you fight gravity (but more importantly Inertia) right on up until the engines turn off. This acceleration is usually 3-times the pull of gravity on Earth's surface (an acceleration of 22mph increased velocity every second for about 12-1/2min). You feel 3G's all the way up to orbit then the engines turn off and you're just falling again -- that's weightlessness again.
But every time you change course in space you feel G-forces (fighting Inertia not Gravity).
Using the term "microgravity" as people use it one could make a fast turn in a car and feel "microgravity" pulling you to the side of you car. Referring to Def2 which is "any change from an Inertial course of motion"
Thank you . Very helpful
I think I already knew all the pieces.. I just never connected them together before.
Skip the "Truss". Just use long cables. Once spinning, and tight, it should stay configured correctly.
gravity is not a force, it's an effect of mass on space-time. Don't tell Newton!
The effect of mass is not a force?
A circular spaceship with a 1 km diameter would be difficult to make, but they could make a spaceship out of 2 parts, say living space and utilities, and connect them with a 1 km cable, and make that spin around. Much more affordable.
Fantastic Video Thanks for Sharing
Probably your best video ever
farther = physical distance (throw a ball farther, run farther, travel farther); further = symbolic distance (further back in time, further knowledge)
The coriolis effect is not something extreme and unimagineable, it's just how the centrifuge tries to simulate earths gravity, when you throw something up it will fall down, if the ring is large enought when you throw something up it will fall straight back to where it was thrown, just like on earth.
Difference between a blue origin capsule and a real spaceship he said...
😂😂😂
Lol, I caught that too. No disrespect to Blue Origin, but the New Shepherd capsule is basically just a rocket plane without wings. I'm looking forward to when they built the first New Glenn rocket. That, at least in my mind, will be their first true spaceship.
Exactly right. To become a multi-planet civilization, gravity is a prerequisite. Actually if we could control gravity, we wouldn't need the other planets.
Also, thanks so much for the unsensationalist heading!
Gravity - Excellently explained..
Good video but you had some errors...study more on escape velocity and acceleration...but good job anyway..u my friend earn a sub!
Would an astronauts body benefit from a daily dose of gravity while exercising for an hour daily? They could create a small pod, tie it to some long cables and spin it, put a treadmill in there and do calisthenics daily?
Whenever someone says "zero G", they really mean *weightlessness* not microgravity. The force in the orbit is not much less than on the planet surface, nothing micro about it.
This channel gets shit wrong all the time but actually microgravity is correct here. Astronauts experience a reaction force of ~10^-6 g due to things such as atmospheric drag or solar radiation pressure on the spacecraft/EVA suit and it'll never truly be 0 g
@@KimmyJongUn 0-g would be the point between Earth and Moon where each body's gravity is cancelled out by the other... If you ignore the gravity of the Sun, planets, stars etc.
I've been working on sequencing a combination of Starship types into a spin gravity orbiting space station/ship.
Great work again, thanks.
So interesting thank you
the end is basically the movie stowaway :) they had gravity like that created
The research i have done. About artificial gravity. The speed and diameter of the module is important. To get 17% gravity or moon gravity you need a radius of 300 feet with ruffly 2+ rotation a minute. But the bigger the diameter of the slower the rotation needs to be less motion sickness.
Think more like a mile or more in diameter for a serious artificial world. There are currently plans to build space stations on that scale, but even to do that, we have to mine and manufacture the parts on the Moon. There's no way we can lift all that stuff from Earth, even with a hundred Starships. The cost makes it impractical.
13:34 is the key point of this video, but I wonder if they have considered an inflatable tether maybe combined with cables
VERY well done! Thank you!
Gravity is not pull, it is a push. It is a result of being caught in the flow of uncompressed aether/space, that flows towards compressed aether/Matter. Everything is pressure mediation.
Where do you get oxygen and food?
Great video!
Does this mean if you drilled a hole 5000m deep and stood at the bottom, you would weigh more? If so, by how much
There isn't an end to infinity, even the infinity of "our" Universe, within an eternal multiverse.
Maybe the answer is to find an object in space that is already 1km wide, e.g. an asteroid, harness it and build our habitat on the asteroid. Then rotate ite at the required speed and then propell it to where we wanted to go?
I think the first step is something much less than 1g, not much data but worth looking into if .3 ? G or .6G greatly reduced the problems of 0 g..
You can connect the two parts with long cable, also i think that we maybe we can use smaller gravity, it maybe still cause problem in long term but it at list will make the life of the astrounots mach easier because they can actually use normal toilets for example
I don't like the term, micro gravity. If you had an accelerometer, it would be reading zero. I realise that gravity is all around us from different sources, the sun, the moon, other planets, but we can't feel that inside a spacecraft because everything is moving at the same speed.
I love how in the thumbnail rotating starship, there is no passageway from one side to the other! 😂
I think a 1km space station would be very doable just off of the moon alone. The moon likely has more than enough resources and with the reduced gravity and lack of atmosphere, getting massive prefabbed parts into orbit would be a breeze. With no atmosphere you can just use a sky crane.
After the moon gets the capability to manufacture ships, we will see sci fi like space ships made there.
You should do complex physics lessons
We had that same example in my hs textbook! The baseball around the earth one lol.
On a trip to and from Mars, a module set aside for artificial gravity could be used a few hours per day by astronauts, similar to people on earth going to the gym to exercise. This gravity simulation module could be suspended from the main craft at the end of a tunnel, or a tether, with ingress enabled by traveling through the tunnel, or sliding while attached to the tether. The module could hold about a half dozen crew members at a time -- exercising, or watching videos and betting on football games. It could by swung so that centripetal force would create the artificial 1-G, or the Martian 0.38 Gs.
No permanent construction project of the magnitude of a 1km station would be needed, since the module is used only as needed.
I think the more critical thing to achieve this idea during the flight is how the spacecraft can continuously absorb enough energy. The realization of artificial gravity will definitely consume a certain amount of energy resources, and to maintain such consumption, it must be extracted from the outside. If this is not possible, it is obviously more reliable and practical to prepare exercise equipment.
I’m enjoying the discussion here, in most cases better informed than the original presenter.
Or a slide track with a rolling cart attached to bungee cords.
Videos are great!
Microgravity is not the biggest challenge to long duration space flights above the Van Allan Belts. It's Galactic Cosmic Radiation. As this very good video illustrates, MG is quite easy to mitigagte. GCR is not.
It is possible in theory, but the problem is to implement, verify, or think of a better method.
I have always wondered if there is any theoretical science behind the "magical" nonrotational artificial gravity so popular in science fiction. It seems like it would be a good tactical tool to turn off the artificial gravity in Star Trek. Strap in as your enemy beams themselves onto the ship but they are suspended in zero gravity. I would think it could be localized and anyone not wearing a Star Trek communicator could experience 10x the normal gravity.
You can't just spin two or three Starships, it must be a certain diameter spinning at a particular speed for it to work correctly. It's not like spinning a YO-YO.
Didn't realise the inverse square law also defined gravity, thanks
I think a robotic refinery in geo orbit to melt down old sats and debris would solve that problem then a robotic fab plant to build habitats to solve that problem would be great.
1:00 Missed opportunity for a Star Wars reference "It’s an energy field created by all living things. It surrounds us and penetrates us. It binds the galaxy together." :(
"Beam me up, Scotty".
As for the Video ok info presented but limited on details, there are more options available.
Everything is under the influence of gravity, even things in orbit. The difference is things in orbit are falling around the planet fast enough to cancel out the gravitational influence and therefore experience zero g forces. Gravity and g force are different things.
I already figured it out in a way it would become extremely cheap for any country that wants to build a space station.
What NASA or Space X can do, is to build inflatable modules and deploy and test on the ISS, when sufficient testing and improvements are done, then send to the Moon together with the Lunar Gateway station.
I know this might sound real "science fiction-any", but I wonder if in the far future, after lunar and martian bases have been established, some people who decide to populate space stations, might decide to live their whole lives in microgravity? Studies have been done to observe the effects of microgravity on subjects who have spent as much as a little over a year in orbit. The effects seemed to be cumulative, the longer the subject spent in microgravity. However, what would happen to a person who spent the rest of their lives in microgravity? Could humans actually live whole lives in microgravity, from birth until death? Could the human organism adapt to such a condition? Could the human body be surgically ( using nanobots from inside ) adapted to microgravity?
I understand that folks don't come here for a physics lesson, but is better not to actively give the wrong explanation why low "g" environments are obtained in orbit. Like you do at about 1:34. It is not the drop off of Earth's gravitational field, it is being in free fall with no air resistance. Stick the numbers into Newton's law. They are almost 400 years old and the formulas are given in high school physics. How high is the ISS orbit? What is the radius of the earth? The gravitational field of earth is almost the same at sea level as it is at the ISS!
Asking ChatGPT to do the calculations and explain the results :
The gravitational field strength at the altitude of the International Space Station (ISS), approximately 400 kilometers above Earth's surface, is about 8.69 m/s 2
This compares to the standard 9.81 m/s 2 at sea level.
This calculation shows that while the ISS is in a microgravity environment, allowing for the phenomena of weightlessness experienced by the astronauts, the gravitational pull it experiences is not drastically less than on Earth's surface-approximately 89% of the surface value. The sensation of weightlessness is primarily due to the ISS being in a continuous free fall towards Earth, while its horizontal velocity is sufficient to keep it in orbit.
freakin love your content dude, keep up the awesome work
Feel like the video is explaining gravity and talks very little about life itself in artificial gravity
Can Shell theory explain gravity in a homogeneous solid metal core planet?
The spaceships were wrongly oriented. When we take into question the layout of levels in the habitable part of spaceship, those should be pointing on each other by the bows ("noses").
It doesn’t need to be a truss, just a tether.
Einsteins gedankenekspiriment tells us that in terms of gravitation there would be no difference between 1g on earth and 1g in a spacestation or 1g on an accelerating rocket
Notification Squad! :)