Quote from: MATTBLAK on 01/31/2018 02:55 amNonetheless; they should strive to make any rotating artificial-grav structure large as practically possibleWhy do you assume the FISO/Boeing concept isn't "as large as practically possible"? Given that "practical" and "possible" include things like cost, launch vehicles, likelihood of getting approval, logistics of mating with the larger station/vehicle, etc.
Nonetheless; they should strive to make any rotating artificial-grav structure large as practically possible
Quote from: Paul451 on 01/31/2018 02:24 pmQuote from: MATTBLAK on 01/31/2018 02:55 amNonetheless; they should strive to make any rotating artificial-grav structure large as practically possibleWhy do you assume the FISO/Boeing concept isn't "as large as practically possible"? Given that "practical" and "possible" include things like cost, launch vehicles, likelihood of getting approval, logistics of mating with the larger station/vehicle, etc.It may be "as large as practically possible" if you assume it must be launched in one piece.
Hab <dock> Link <dock> Hab
It can host additional fuel or propulsion systems for instance.
It surprises me that this configuration is being overlooked.
Something prepared earlier for another thread. [...]
PERHAPS if an astronaut is able to sleep in 1g then all the 0g issues will disappear.
Quote from: Russel on 02/02/2018 01:01 amHab <dock> Link <dock> HabUsually the "link" is called a "node", or "docking node".Quote from: Russel on 02/02/2018 01:01 amIt can host additional fuel or propulsion systems for instance.At least it could host the power system. With the solar arrays "hanging" in the rotational plane.Quote from: Russel on 02/02/2018 01:01 amIt surprises me that this configuration is being overlooked.I don't think it's been overlooked. Look up the various spin-gravity threads, usually in the Advanced Concepts section. People have played with seemingly every possible configuration. This one is a pretty basic option, usually called a "dumbbell". I scratched one out ages ago (see below), when I needed to explain what I meant about the arrays "hanging" in the rotational plane. (People always seem to forget about power/etc with a rotating station.)We've also previously discussed issues with this layout. For example, if you have an unbalanced mass (such as a capsule) docked on the rotational axis, it will destabilise the system, causing it to periodically flip the rotational plane 180° every so often.
Quote from: Aussie_Space_Nut on 02/02/2018 11:24 pmPERHAPS if an astronaut is able to sleep in 1g then all the 0g issues will disappear.Backwards. We use bedrest to simulate zero-g health effects on Earth. Sleeping under gravity does nothing to reverse or prevent zero-g issues.You want to do standing/moving work and exercise under gravity, then have sleep and sitting/lounging activities in low/zero gravity.
Globus and Hall write that rotations up to 10 rpm may be acceptable with training.If you only want Mars gravity for transit, 8.2 rpm would be fine.
No recliner here on earth can or ever will be "zero gravity".
5 pages of people trying to re-invent the wheel. As many in the past have pointed out - rotate a pressurized habitat linked to an empty upper stage via a few hundred feet of tethering. Quite large radii of rotation are possible with tethers.