Specing for sub-g might not pay (was How to keep sports-cars from flying)

--- In spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com, 12948, "brooksn" wrote:
> I always thought that reducing the G to 1/3 and air pressure by half made sense in a space habitat. It seems very likely all humans can handle those conditions so why waste the resources to replicate Earth 'exactly'.
--- In spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com, "sailor.barsoom" wrote:
> --- In spacesettlers, "hitssquad" wrote:
> run the belts at full speed, EXCEPT where they yank stuff downward. Do THAT at 1/6 speed

That's what's called a "bottleneck". Anyway, you seem to have answered Brooks's "why waste the resources to replicate Earth 'exactly'" question with plenty of examples demonstrating why.

> (and don't tell me belts can't speed up and slow down in specific spots, or I'll have to give examples of how that's done on Earth right now).

For equivalent throughput it would require wider belts carrying packages side-by-side, and isn't done on the "30,500 conveyor belts that comprise 170 total miles of belts" at UPS Worldport because of the costs, including extra space it would take up.

In short, when designing a space habitat, it might make more sense ultimately to spec it for 1+ g than to try to save money by specing it for sub-g.