What Life Inside Artificial Gravity Will Be Like!
What Life Inside Artificial Gravity Will Be Like!
Last Video: What Life Inside NASA’s Lunar Gateway Station Will Be Like!
• What Life Inside NASA’...
►The Space Race Merch Store Is Live! Shop our first release while quantities last: shop.theteslaspace.com/
► Join Our Discord Server: / discord
► Patreon: / theteslaspace
► Subscribe to our other channel, The Space Race: / theteslaspace
Mars Colonization News and Updates
• Mars Colonization News...
SpaceX News and Updates: • SpaceX News and Updates
The Space Race is dedicated to the exploration of outer space and humans' mission to explore the universe. We’ll provide news and updates from everything in space, including the SpaceX and NASA mission to colonize Mars and the Moon. We’ll focus on news and updates from SpaceX, NASA, Starlink, Blue Origin, The James Webb Space Telescope and more. If you’re interested in space exploration, Mars colonization, and everything to do with space travel and the space race... you’ve come to the right channel! We love space and hope to inspire others to learn more!
► Subscribe to The Tesla Space newsletter: www.theteslaspace.com
Business Email: derek@ellify.com
#Spacex #Space #Mars
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.
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!
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.
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!
One way to find out about low gravity on the body is to staying and working on the Moon first.
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.
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.
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
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
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 know u guys are not here for a physics lecture" Proceeds to give us a lecture on gravity physics 😂
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.
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.
I have been waiting for spinning gravity video from someone for months, thanks!
Same gonna make one in kerbal 😊
Your videos are amazing. Please keep them coming.
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.
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.
Love your content!! Great work!!
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.
Congratulations, you just explained Dr Zubrins centrifugal artificial gravity generator. But all you need is two Habs, steel cable, and directional thrusters.
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!
Also, don't forget the second, counter-rotating mass that is required for your animation example.
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.
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 ,
Thank you . Very helpful I think I already knew all the pieces.. I just never connected them together before.
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.
Fantastic Video Thanks for Sharing
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).
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.
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 😂
Great work again, thanks.
Great video!
VERY well done! Thank you!
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.
Wow this is so cool....love the explanation of gravity.
Probably your best video ever
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"
Videos are great!
farther = physical distance (throw a ball farther, run farther, travel farther); further = symbolic distance (further back in time, further knowledge)
I’m enjoying the discussion here, in most cases better informed than the original presenter.
Does the rotation driver in the center of the artificial gravity infrastructure require constant power/energy or does it just need the initial acceleration to power up?
It would need very little maintenance bursts to regain energy lost by friction with the air inside.
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.
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.
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.
We had that same example in my hs textbook! The baseball around the earth one lol.
@3:00 downtown Houston. From right to left. Centerpoint Energy Plaza, JP Morgan Chase Tower and Enterprise Plaza
the end is basically the movie stowaway :) they had gravity like that created
So interesting thank you
Thank you
Also, thanks so much for the unsensationalist heading!
Skip the "Truss". Just use long cables. Once spinning, and tight, it should stay configured correctly.
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?
Gravity - Excellently explained..
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
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.
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!
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?
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?
Sub orbital capsules like the NS or the Mercury Redstone are still real spaceships since they really go into real space.
I love how in the thumbnail rotating starship, there is no passageway from one side to the other! 😂
NASA studied AG problems way back on Skylab in the early 1970's before shuttle Experiment "M131" tested response to spinning in a chair Pilots call it the "Barney chair" after adapting to zero-g (microgravity) Astronauts had no strong vertigo (no vomiting). also recently an ISS astronaut rotated at approx 90 rpm for several minutes and had very little disorientation. I'll post the links in a reply if this channel doesn't allow link posting... my "X" (twitter) site has lots of data on the subject...;-)
doesn't allow links sorry folks...8-(
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.
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.
You should do complex physics lessons
Barf, that's what spin causes, Barf !!!!
13:34 is the key point of this video, but I wonder if they have considered an inflatable tether maybe combined with cables
Good video but you had some errors...study more on escape velocity and acceleration...but good job anyway..u my friend earn a sub!
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.
Feel like the video is explaining gravity and talks very little about life itself in artificial gravity
Still how can you add artificial gravity anything between a large asteroid, moon, or a planet?
Gravity is a means to express the effect of gravity
There isn't an end to infinity, even the infinity of "our" Universe, within an eternal multiverse.
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.
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.
Or a slide track with a rolling cart attached to bungee cords.
It doesn’t need to be a truss, just a tether.
It is possible in theory, but the problem is to implement, verify, or think of a better method.
I already figured it out in a way it would become extremely cheap for any country that wants to build a space station.
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.
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.
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.
Who doesn't love it? I DON'T! I'd be puking all over the inside of my helmet.
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.
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.
Your talking in facts and nobody trully knows what’s in our core
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 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..
Didn't realise the inverse square law also defined gravity, thanks
wait what. I've never heard about the gravity well iron-core part. It seems reasonable but quite mindblowing.
I've never heard about it either, but it makes sense that the core would be much denser than the outer layers.
@@mikemccormick6128 The implication being that if you would stand on a planet made out of metal the acceleration gradient would be similar as the centrifugal forces of a spinning wheel with a small radius (hundreds of meters)
we should aim for 0.5g or so the first time ring station as a learning process.
Exactly, surely we don't need to simulate earth's gravity precisely to get the desired effects .
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! :)
Can Shell theory explain gravity in a homogeneous solid metal core planet?
Wait... Merry-go-rounds are illegal now? What the hell?
freakin love your content dude, keep up the awesome work
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.
if you are far away from any large gravity source in space you still float and are not in free fall, right?
Floating and free fall are the same.
As one descends into the earth the force of gravity will decrease becoming zero at the center.
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").
Micro gravity has been studied to death! Now its time to give centrifugal gravity a chance to be studied so that we can figure out the kinks! We are going to need some kind of gravity if we want to get to other planets like Mars and beyond in good physical shape!
One of my biggest disappointments is that despite having a continuous presence on the ISS for decades now, there seems to have been little focus on development of some form of rotational gravity system. Seems like it ought to be a priority.
If we are going to have Mars bases, we desperately need to figure out the health effects of lower but not zero gravity. Martian gravity being 1/3rd that of earth's, the radius of rotation would be 1/3rd of a kilometer. If we wanted to experiment with lunar gravity (1/6th g) and were willing to rotate at 2rpm rather than 1rpm, we could reduce the radius by a factor of 24 (since centripetal acceleration is rω²) meaning we would only need a radius of 40 meters. Also, Newtonian physics is entirely sufficient to understand how to simulate gravity, even if Einsteinian physics is required to understand time dilation from sustained acceleration. It is however true that in Newtonian physics the similarity between gravity and other forms of acceleration is essentially an oddity that happens to fall out of the math, whereas in Einsteinian physics the similarity is fundamental to understanding space-time, but that point is mostly irrelevant to the points in the video. Only a basic high school physics education should be needed to understand most of the points in the video, so bringing in Einstein just necessarily confuses the issues.