In designing a vehicle for an expedition to Mars using internal
gravity simulation section some initial questions immediately come to mind:
2) How little simulated gravity would be necessary to mitigate the more
debilitating effects of prolonged weightlessness.
3) Could energy return be used to slow/stop the rotation for maneuvers
without mission-fatal consequences to the structure of the vehicle--more
braking through friction as opposed to using reaction mass.
This is a thought exercise and I would appreciate any other questions or
solutions-complete or partial--that occur to any of you at any time.
As you can see, I re-titled the thread "Leonov II."
Thank you,
ERandall
On Tue, Sep 21, 2010 at 2:17 AM, ERandall wrote:
(...)
> 2) How little simulated gravity would be necessary to mitigate the more
> debilitating effects of prolonged weightlessness.
microgravity. However, since the astronauts would have to cope with
Martian gravity anyway, I think that it would make sense to use
Martian gravity in the way to Mars. Back to Earth, an interesting
approach might be starting with Martian gravity and then slowly going
up to Earth gravity, so that the crew would arrive on Earth
"reabilitated" to the normal weight in their homeworld.
> 3) Could energy return be used to slow/stop the rotation for maneuvers
> without mission-fatal consequences to the structure of the vehicle--more
> braking through friction as opposed to using reaction mass.
(...)
Yes. Indeed, supposing a ship with two counter-rotating sections, you
could even use the junction point as a dynamo, converting rotational
energy into electricity (and storing it in batteries) and then using
the junction as an electrical engine to make the sections rotate
again.
On the other hand, if you use counter-rotating sections (or perhaps a
rotating section inside a counter-rotating radiation shield; the
reasoning is the same), then the total angular momentum of the ship
would be zero and there would be no gyro effect. Therefore, I don't
see why it would be necessary to stop the ship's rotation in order to
maneuver...
> On Tue, Sep 21, 2010 at 2:17 AM, ERandall wrote:
> (...)
> > 2) How little simulated gravity would be necessary to mitigate the more
> > debilitating effects of prolonged weightlessness.
>
> We really don't have studies on the effects of fractional g, only
> microgravity. However, since the astronauts would have to cope with
> Martian gravity anyway, I think that it would make sense to use
> Martian gravity in the way to Mars. Back to Earth, an interesting
> approach might be starting with Martian gravity and then slowly going
> up to Earth gravity, so that the crew would arrive on Earth
> "reabilitated" to the normal weight in their homeworld.
Brooks
I looked up the length needed, only a 168 foot long space station (or two habitats) would produce 1/8th g with a 2 rpm rotation rate.
Brooks
Another idea for the first rotating space station. Bigelow's habitat would be at one end, then a tether to a spent rocket part. Which reduces the need to transit between the two. Then when each new launch is made of tourists, workers, etc. a Soyuz type piece is added to the Bigelow habitat, similarly to the Mir. Slowly building a tunnel toward the center of rotation. A spent rocket piece can be added to the 'dead weight' side as needed. Once you are at the middle, a 4 way module can be added and 1 and eventually a second Bigelow habitat can be added. Expanding the zero g portion of the station, then launches can continue to bring Soyuz pieces to expand to the other end of the 'ladder' until at the end you add another Bigelow habitat. My understanding is one Bigelow habitat has the entire living space as ISS currently. So at 4 habitats and a football field and a half of Soyuz tunnel we could have conservatively 12 to 24 people, possibly a few more since this only counts the habitat space not the narrower tunnel. Beyond this you would just need connecting units to expand for more habitats.
--- In spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com, "brooksn" wrote:
On 27/09/2010, brooksn wrote:
> Another idea for the first rotating space station. Bigelow's habitat would
> be at one end, then a tether to a spent rocket part.
habitat and three cables. It's a lot more stable, doesn't tend to
wobble.
> Brooks
--
-Ian Woollard
But then the center of rotation is in the center of the triangle in open space. We would need one dissecting tether from the habitat to the middle of spent rocket's tether or 3 more tethers starting from the center of the triangle to all three bodies of the station. How much wobbling is there I wonder, especially if our goal is only 1/8th g or some other low g requirement?
--- In spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com, Ian Woollard wrote:
Why couldn't they be tethered to a central cylinder? It could
strictly be an instrument staging unit as opposed to a hab or
docking/transfer module.