Virgin Galactic

[Aer'ki]

Completely agree with Aer'ki on this one. And it's not just the efficiency of it. You also have to keep in mind that we need people up there, in space, who aren't astronauts trained to deal with microgravity for extended periods of time. We need ordinary people, some of whom start to feeling motion seek in a car.

The spaceport-to-spaceport ship may spend days or even months in voyage. It must provide artificial gravity. The only way we know how is with centrifugal effect. A ship with centrifugal gravity is not going to be the kind of thing that will enter atmosphere, and wouldn't be easy to land on a planet/moon devoid of it either.

Landers, in contrast, spend little time not docked to rotating station or not on the surface. And even most of the flight time they undergo acceleration. In fact, by timing the launches right, it is possible to achieve almost perfect 1g gravity from the moment passenger steps onto the lander to the moment that same passenger steps out into the docking area of the spaceport.

The importance of Artificial Gravity cannot be overexaggerated. It is key to space colonization. The construction of the ISS without AG is an epic facepalm. It means it can't be used as a proper starport, making it little more than a temporary research station...one that robs the crew of base strength every time they use it. As an athlete, I find this abhorent. I know what effect skipping workouts do to the body...gravity is a constant workout 24/7...take that away and you're practically killing yourself with stagnation.

On the other hand, zero or fractional gravity can have temporary uses for the ill or injured during their recovery. It's not total poison.

[Alx]

so what you are saying the ISS is pointless as it doesnt have AG? what about all the potential reaserch and stuff that can be learned from it?

[tinerin]

The importance of Artificial Gravity cannot be overexaggerated. It is key to space colonization. The construction of the ISS without AG is an epic facepalm. It means it can't be used as a proper starport, making it little more than a temporary research station...one that robs the crew of base strength every time they use it. As an athlete, I find this abhorent. I know what effect skipping workouts do to the body...gravity is a constant workout 24/7...take that away and you're practically killing yourself with stagnation.

So how many successful experiments have there been to produce artificial gravity for humans equivalent to earth's gravity? Artificial gravity is still just a dream (even though the science exists)...it'll probably cost billions of dollars and be several decades before we see the first space ship/station that utilisizes artificial gravity...

[K^2]

So how many successful experiments have there been to produce artificial gravity for humans equivalent to earth's gravity?

Not only has artificial gravity has been produced, it has been successfully tested on an actual space station in early 70's. Here is a video. Artificial gravity is demonstrated about 25s in. This method of producing artificial gravity, while having a number of drawbacks, is more than sufficient for a spaceport.

[Aer'ki]

Technically it'd be a STARPORT, a SPACEPORT is on the surface, but anyway...

I saw the principle tested in space myself on a direct feed from the shuttle on the NASA channel. An astronaut had a hotwheels track loop and connected it to itself so it was one giant "Halo". He had a windup car and put it on the track. It floated off. He wound it up and gave it a push to start and it drove around the loop several times before running out of juice. It was held to the track by Artificial Gravity produced through centrifugal effect. So it is real and tested, albeit in a comical fashion.

so what you are saying the ISS is pointless as it doesnt have AG? what about all the potential reaserch and stuff that can be learned from it?

From an infrastructure perspective, yes, it's next to useless. For a scientific testbed, it has uses, but it comes at a high cost physically to the crew, which makes it junk IMO.

In addition to no AG, it has no Armor against puncture and no Armor against radiation.

A proper starport would have at least one section of AG and one section of Zero G, but with many other possibilities inbetween. You could have a .5G section or a 1.1G section for 'enhanced training.'

A rotating cylinder attached to a hard, stable frame is the best idea, because a hard shell can be constructed OVER the cylinder. In this way the rotating part is protected from particle and radiation impacts and keeps all moving parts INSIDE the structure, making docking easy and stable.

The trickiest part I foresee is the mechanical transition from Zero G to AG. It would have to consist of a twisting seal. I know this is doable, but I'm not sure how hard it would be.

As for the counter list from the twisting section, put a second rotating section opposite the first to null out the spin. Moveable weights inside each, computer controlled, can account for mass changes from cargo and crew moving about inside.

AG also makes eating, sleeping, and using the bathroom much easier and applicable with conventional technology.

Such a Starport would not be modular like the ISS. It would have to be constructed piecemeal in space. Some segments could be preassembled, but a lot more work would have to be done onsite. A lot of people say this just isn't doable, but if you use robotic workers instead of awkward people in spacesuits it really isn't that big of a deal. Have a guy inside a sealed module working a remote 'armbot' and he'll have far more precision than using pressurized gloves in person.

A lot of prework would be needed, but the principles are sound enough. The first starport would be a ***** to make, but the second, third, etc would become progressively easier as technology and experience snowballed.

IMO, it's worth the initial headaches in order to get our feet wet. And would be VERY PROFITABLE for a corporation if they got there first.

[knowles2]

The ISS was design to have many uses.

Not being a true engineer but I see no reason why the ISS could not be use a spaceport. I would need a few extra modules added. An probably a major reconfiguration to enable it to have artificial gravity.

An yes it a space port until it start launching vessels to other stars then it can be called a star port, I take the same view to the starship/space ship, it not a starship until it can take me or my fellow humans to other stars.

The ISS have taught us a lot about building an designing stuff to be assemble into orbit. Perhaps the biggest lession being do not design stuff which can only be flown on a single space ship, which is control but the over cautious Americans who rather leave billions of dollars worth of components on the ground than simply take the small risk of continue use of the shuttle.

The ISS goal was not scientific but rather political, there were a lot of Russians rocket engineers who were poor, hungry an unemployed in Russia at the end of the cold war, the ISS was a way of America to indirectly employ the majority of them but with out the Russians getting upset an without America technology going to Russia. In that respect, considering Iran an North Korean rockets still remains decades behind what the West an Russians can field, I think we can safety presume that it main goal was successful.

As to the science an experiments, this is probably where the ISS fulls down, especially without the shuttle being able to regularly takes supplies up to the station to resupply it. An still no regular resupply vessels available, I believe both Japanese an Europe resupply vessels are on 2-3 years schedule at the earliest, that presuming no delays in building of the crafts.

I still suspect that the station will lead to many discoveries, through whether these discoveries will recoup the 200 billion dollars cost of the mission is a other question to be answer. Which will not know for years or even decades considering that most of the experiments are blue sky projects who ultimate discoveries an knowledge may not be put to use for many decades after they are discovered.

Then I personally believe the ISS itself can at as a part of the infrastructure needed for a moon colony an explorations missions to Mars an the Asteroids.



I

[K^2]

[ISS] would need a few extra modules added. An probably a major reconfiguration to enable it to have artificial gravity.

It has insufficient structural integrity to sustain AG even if you used a tether design. It simply wasn't designed for anything other than microgravity.

[tinerin]

Technically it'd be a STARPORT, a SPACEPORT is on the surface, but anyway...

I am almost 100% certain that NASA uses the term spaceport regardless of whether it's on the ground or in space...

I saw the principle tested in space myself on a direct feed from the shuttle on the NASA channel. An astronaut had a hotwheels track loop and connected it to itself so it was one giant "Halo". He had a windup car and put it on the track. It floated off. He wound it up and gave it a push to start and it drove around the loop several times before running out of juice. It was held to the track by Artificial Gravity produced through centrifugal effect. So it is real and tested, albeit in a comical fashion.

My question was how many successful human tests have there been simulating Earth gravity? Alot of things are real and tested...quantum computers are real, but I'm not using one at home since the most powerful quantum computer has only been able to factor the number 15...simulating gravity to hold a 2 inch long hotwheels car to a race track for a short period of time is far from simulating Earth gravity for humans for a year or more...

From an infrastructure perspective, yes, it's next to useless. For a scientific testbed, it has uses, but it comes at a high cost physically to the crew, which makes it junk IMO.

Well that is it's original purpose! And I haven't seen any news stories in the past decade about ISS astronauts dieing in space or having significant medical problems after returning to Earth so the health issues are manageable with proper training and medical care...

In addition to no AG, it has no Armor against puncture and no Armor against radiation.

well al-Qaeda isn't planning on blowing it up...and it still hasn't crashed...and we still don't have former astronauts with Fantastic Four superpowers...so it's fine for its purpose

AG also makes eating, sleeping, and using the bathroom much easier and applicable with conventional technology.

While eating is a definite advantage...there are reasons other then no gravity that astronauts sleep and go to the bathroom the way they do...mainly space and weight...both of which are still major concerns for us with our current technology to get things into spce...

Such a Starport would not be modular like the ISS. It would have to be constructed piecemeal in space. Some segments could be preassembled, but a lot more work would have to be done onsite. A lot of people say this just isn't doable, but if you use robotic workers instead of awkward people in spacesuits it really isn't that big of a deal. Have a guy inside a sealed module working a remote 'armbot' and he'll have far more precision than using pressurized gloves in person.

I don't think anyone thinks it's impossible...just that it's currently impractical and not worth the cost...the US, Russia, China and India are all independently racing to go to the moon by 2020 and the US, Europe, and Russia are all racing to go to Mars by 2035 and noone is even considering building a spaceport or developing a spaceship with artificial gravity...

A lot of prework would be needed, but the principles are sound enough. The first starport would be a ***** to make, but the second, third, etc would become progressively easier as technology and experience snowballed.

IMO, it's worth the initial headaches in order to get our feet wet. And would be VERY PROFITABLE for a corporation if they got there first.

The ISS costed like $150 billion...an actual spaceport like your describing would probably be much much more...Unless you're charging like a billon dollars for a flight to Mars, I don't see how it be VERY PROFITABLE within any reasonable time frame...

[K^2]

My question was how many successful human tests have there been simulating Earth gravity? Alot of things are real and tested...quantum computers are real, but I'm not using one at home since the most powerful quantum computer has only been able to factor the number 15...simulating gravity to hold a 2 inch long hotwheels car to a race track for a short period of time is far from simulating Earth gravity for humans for a year or more...

Oh, wow. Great argument. Lets compare something that ancient Greeks had a handle on to quantum computing. Did you watch the video I linked? Artificial gravity acting on a human being on an actual space station sufficient for that human being to run circles. Naturally, you'd be rotating the station instead, which would allow you to sustain such gravity indefinitely.

The only problem is requirement for structural integrity which would increase the mass and the cost of the station slightly.

well al-Qaeda isn't planning on blowing it up...and it still hasn't crashed...and we still don't have former astronauts with Fantastic Four superpowers...so it's fine for its purpose

Mir nearly bought it at least twice over the time of its operation. Once when struck by a micro asteroid, and once when struck by another space ship. ISS has been more lucky so far. A particle the size of grain of sand can blow a hole through the skin of ISS, and there are a lot of these on LEO.

Oh, and remember that defunct Soviet satellite that struck one of the Iridium satellites? Know what would happen if it was ISS instead?

there are reasons other then no gravity that astronauts sleep and go to the bathroom the way they do...mainly space and weight...

And now you're just making sh*t up. They have special pumps that help you use the bathroom because it saves space/weight? I thought not having these would save on the weight.

not worth the cost

I want to hear you say that when we have an asteroid on impact course. And we know from historical record that it is only a matter of time.

[tinerin]

Oh, wow. Great argument. Lets compare something that ancient Greeks had a handle on to quantum computing. Did you watch the video I linked? Artificial gravity acting on a human being on an actual space station sufficient for that human being to run circles. Naturally, you'd be rotating the station instead, which would allow you to sustain such gravity indefinitely.

The only problem is requirement for structural integrity which would increase the mass and the cost of the station slightly.

So the ancient Greeks had a handle on artificial gravity technology? The oldest reference I could find to using centrifugal force to create artificial gravity is in the 1940's...

Well I specifically mentioned Earth gravity (since I believe it was mentioned previously in this thread) not artificial gravity in general. If it's so simple and cheap to do it, then why is noone putting in the money to actually do it?

Mir nearly bought it at least twice over the time of its operation. Once when struck by a micro asteroid, and once when struck by another space ship. ISS has been more lucky so far. A particle the size of grain of sand can blow a hole through the skin of ISS, and there are a lot of these on LEO.

Oh, and remember that defunct Soviet satellite that struck one of the Iridium satellites? Know what would happen if it was ISS instead?

well luck is free...it's worked so far...

And now you're just making sh*t up. They have special pumps that help you use the bathroom because it saves space/weight? I thought not having these would save on the weight.

This is probably a mistake on my part, but I thought a significant portion of that stuff is there to store/recycle waste, which means they would still be there even if you had artificial gravity...also wouldn't you need to carry alot more water if you used standard toilets instead of what they currently use?

I want to hear you say that when we have an asteroid on impact course. And we know from historical record that it is only a matter of time.

Well I'm obviously not the only one saying it cuz like I said you have 5 different space agencies planning on sending man out into space within the next 25 years...

[K^2]

The oldest reference I could find to using centrifugal force to create artificial gravity is in the 1940's...

Einstein postulated that gravity and inertial forces, such as centrifugal force, are equivalent in his work on General Relativity. So nobody would call it artificial gravity until at least 1915. However, centrifugal force has been completely understood as far back as Newton's Principia, circa 1700. People then knew enough about celestial motion to design a station with centrifugal gravity. And ancient Greeks knew of the concept. To them, water staying in a rotating bucket was a known phenomena, and they would be able to understand centrifugal gravity conceptually, if not quantitatively.

But sure, if you just type words into Google without having any idea what they actually mean, I'm sure searching for relevant entries is difficult. Which is why you should leave it to people who actually have some knowledge of the subject.

Well I specifically mentioned Earth gravity (since I believe it was mentioned previously in this thread) not artificial gravity in general. If it's so simple and cheap to do it, then why is noone putting in the money to actually do it?

They have. Skylab ran experiments to establish how well it could work. All results were positive. Then NASA funding dried up, and nothing new happened until ISS. Lack of artificial gravity on ISS is specifically the topic of discussion. Try to keep up.

well luck is free...it's worked so far...

That has been US policy on finance as well, we know how well that worked out. But if you really think that counting on luck is a viable strategy, we have nothing more to discuss. You are beyond help.

This is probably a mistake on my part, but I thought a significant portion of that stuff is there to store/recycle waste, which means they would still be there even if you had artificial gravity...also wouldn't you need to carry alot more water if you used standard toilets instead of what they currently use?

Yes, it's a mistake on your part, and no, there is no reason why you need more water with gravity.

Well I'm obviously not the only one saying it cuz like I said you have 5 different space agencies planning on sending man out into space within the next 25 years...

No, you're not the only one. You are part of the majority. And so far, you haven't stated a single thing without being wrong. So what does that tell you?

[Ed]

People saying the stuff needs armour what kind of armour do you suggest i mean how would you get it up there i know you dont mean like titanium plates but even carbon fibre is heavy in large amounts

As for making the rotating part air tight surely the easiest way is to build the whole inhabited part inside one static airtight structure so you need not worry about rotating seals and such i know this means having more space pressurised but not that much more compared with the dificulties of doing it the other way also the presurised part would be a far simpler shape which has obvious advantages.

[tinerin]

That has been US policy on finance as well, we know how well that worked out. But if you really think that counting on luck is a viable strategy, we have nothing more to discuss. You are beyond help.

It isn't luck...it's a calculated risk...out of the hundreds of people that have gone into space, how many have died because their spacecraft wasn't armored? If it's worked so far, then why spend alot more money for something that may not ever be used?

Yes, it's a mistake on your part, and no, there is no reason why you need more water with gravity.

Do you have any pictures of an actual space toilet? The one that I saw didn't seem much larger than what you might find in an airplane bathroom (I'm sure it's heavier because of all the vacuum equipment but still it seemed to be the same size) but it could be that they just took the actual toilet part without alot of the extra equipment...

No, you're not the only one. You are part of the majority. And so far, you haven't stated a single thing without being wrong. So what does that tell you?

I'm not doubting that this technology wouldn't be incredibly useful, just that it isn't worth the cost to pursue building it at this time...nothing has yet to happen that's actually proves the majority opinion to be wrong...it's not like the people at NASA (or ESA, Russia, China, India) are all stupid (my friend's software engineering team at NASA Ames consists of 3 Phd's, 3 MS's and 2 graduate student interns)...every space agency on Earth feels that it isn't worth the cost to build a spaceport (or a ship with artificial gravity; i'm not actually sure which part you're referring to) at this time...maybe in like 30-50 years when space technology has matured more (which will probably happen due to private space exploration and the current ongoing space race), it will be worth the cost...

Lack of artificial gravity on ISS is specifically the topic of discussion. Try to keep up.

Actually, the topic of discussion is that artificial gravity is essential for space ships travelling to the Moon/Mars and the spaceports that are essential to make such travel feasible...

[K^2]

nothing has yet to happen that's actually proves the majority opinion to be wrong...

We are talking about global extinction type event. When it does happen, it will be too late. And by the way, these have happened already.

how many have died because their spacecraft wasn't armored?

So until there is a body count, potential problem doesn't matter? We've lost unmanned craft and had a few close calls with manned craft due to preventable problems.