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

--- In spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com, "hitssquad" wrote:
>
> --- 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.

It would be foolish for anyone of us here to think that what we 'think' is the best gravity or systems to use on a space habitat are anything but pure speculation. I think a lower g, you think 1 g or greater is better, like Al Globus has pointed out, until we do an actual space station with variable gravity to test out what actually does work best we are just a lot of hot air.
Brooks