Advertisement
Would spinning ship sections actually provide gravity?
I've been watching a lot of Babylon 5 and it occurs to me that the thrust provided by spinning sections might be relative to the observer. At the very least, it seems that it wouldn't be possible to have a "stable" platform with a spinning section. They'd have to be counter spinning at half speed producing centrifugal force in both sections.
I've been watching a lot of Babylon 5 and it occurs to me that the thrust provided by spinning sections might be relative to the observer. At the very least, it seems that it wouldn't be possible to have a "stable" platform with a spinning section. They'd have to be counter spinning at half speed producing centrifugal force in both sections.
posted by:
|
Advertisement
Advertisement
-
Re: Space "gravity"
Tue, October 13, 2009 - 2:55 AMWhy not?
A spinning body is very stable.
But with a section not spinning and a section with spinning, there needs to be some motors to account for friction. -
-
Re: Space "gravity"
Wed, October 14, 2009 - 12:59 PMLinear motors around the inner shell will be held away from the outer shell by the magnetic force of the motor. As the gap between the outer and the inner shell would be a vacuum, there would be no friction. As it is in a weightless environment with no friction, it would take little power to drive. Stick the drums where the people live end on end and the tube could be as long as you want. Even to the point of encircling the Sun. -
-
Re: Space "gravity"
Thu, October 15, 2009 - 3:04 PMEven without friction, if you use magnetic forces, then you still have magnetic resistance once you do not power the motor, which can be very powerful. This kind of configuration would seem to use more power than motors overcoming friction.
What about replacing the magnetic fields with ion or static electricity fields? Perhaps less power would be required than the mangetic fields. -
-
Re: Space "gravity"
Thu, October 15, 2009 - 3:10 PMA more obvious and power cost effectiveness would be spin the whole ship!
Could use ion thrusters, or even solar sails to start the spin. As in like the veins on a wind mill.
To hold things in place, in weightlessness it doesn't take much. And friction is hard to get away from, but sometimes using it wisely is cost effective.
-
-
-
-
Re: Space "gravity"
Fri, October 16, 2009 - 11:57 AMWell, I kinda figured it out on my own.
You get gravity because the spinning section is spinning in relation to one important body: You. Even when you catch up to speed, you still have the centripetal vector outwards. Like in 2001, if you walk in one direction your apparent weight is less, the other direction, more.
The flat platform paradox (watch Babylon 5), I think, is more a visual issue when the spinning bodies are near a visual stable source. B5 uses a "stable" platform (relative to a planet) to help you notice the rotating round main body of the station. Similarly, the Earth cruisers have a rotating section that provides gravity no matter where you are in the ship. The real story in both is that one rotating section means there are two rotating sections (the section plus whatever is driving it) Each rotating at have the relative speed. The upright ships and the illusion of the stable platform on the station means that the entire frame is also rotating relative to something else (camera, planet, whatever) Basically, a decorative issue similar to the one leading to all ship encounters in Star Trek to be "upright" and off the starboard bow.
