Can We Create Artificial Gravity?
Вставка
- Опубліковано 1 тра 2024
- Thanks for watching! I actually had an early version of this ready last week. Which you can watch here on my second channel:
• Video
I decided, with the help of my Patreon supporters, that it wasn't good enough. Have a few ideas for my next video. Space X is winning right now. What do you think? I may try to work on two videos at once this week.
Woops forgot the math:
The equation is a=(w^2)*r where a is the acceleration, w is the angular velocity and r is the radius.
First we must convert RPM to radians per second. There is 2(pi) radians per revolution and 60 seconds in a minute. So one RPM equals 2(pi)/60. We then simply enter these values into the equation. For our first calculation on space station v we get a=(0.1047)^2*150=1.65 ms^-2
Patreon:
www.patreon.com/user?u=282505...
Facebook:
/ realengineering1
Instagram:
/ brianjamesmcmanus
Twitter:
/ fiosracht
Once again thanks to Bensound.com for the amazing royalty free music. This time I used Bensound - New Dawn - Наука та технологія
"what if money wasn't an issue?"
proceeds to talk about money for the rest of the video
He did talk about the amount of steel that is needed
'No bucks, no Buck Rogers.'
Actually... you don't need to build the entire space station... You can built a wire-connected rooms structure that keeps it's shape by centrifugal force and some really small lifts to get into the center room, where people would socialize and feel no centrifugal gravity. That would reduce the cost and the amount of materials by A LOT.
Agreed, it was a little annoying. Basically all he said boiled down to "it's super expensive", and nothing about HOW it could be done. His example of the station from Space Odyssey only talked about making it spin faster, not about what the right size would be. This video? Great idea, failed execution. =^x^=
We spent 7 Trillion dollars on the Iraqi wars, I'm sure we can spare 5 Trillion for space exploration.
Ah yes but then how would we employ all our population? Lol whenever the job market is shrinking there's a war. Hell of a coincidence.
To do that, you'd have to change human nature.
All those trillions didn't get spent in iraq if that much was spent! Maybe one and a half of them did but the majority went to bush and his cronies of bilderburg skull and bones. Biggest money hoarders in the world!!!!
7 trillion isnt that much when its for nation security, its a shame that is where the focus is though
Azriel money not a problem if every person involved says they will do it for free? Say an end of the world scenario. Always laugh when money is involved in space exploration problems. It’s not like we have to buy all the equipment of some alien Walmart lol 😂
We see this design everywhere but to clarify, it doesn't have to be a wheel, it can be just a long beam like structure with living spaces at the ends that spins on its center, that would reduce the cost of material considerably.
Seen it on an alien space ship I took custody of in deep space.
😂😂
Did you get any blueprints about lightspeed spaceship?
*Ayyy, y’all finna get there. When y’all get there.*
@@God-hr9tm God?!
@@NarutoUzumaki-oc7we *What you want little nigga?*
we must use "bill gates" as currency in space
talha dugul maybe "Elon Musk" Is a better alternative.
Eso im going to go to pick up Putin. He is worth 200 billion. Is Russain money allowed lol
I think the joke is that "Bill" here means banknote. So we could use Bill Gates as currency because banknotes are currency.
talha dugul There's a currency called "Solar" and it's going to be use in a spacial nation called Asgardia.
talha dugul
hell no
The cheaper option is to build your space ship the normal size and build a counter weight of the exact same weight. The you get a strong cable of lets say a kilometer in length and but the space ship on one end and the counter weight on the other end.. Straighten it out and then fire a rocket on both the Space ship and the counter weight in opposing rotational direction.. You now have your gravity for a fraction of the cost that of either space station featured in this video..
or you stand on the platform and it rockets towards the destination with rockets on the bottom of where you're standing, pushing you "up" and pulling you "down"
Maathiu Ra Yin
You would have to maintain the 1 G acceleration to the half way point and then turn the space ship around and decelerate with the same 1 G deceleration all the way to you get there.. What engine and fuel could sustain a 1 G acceleration over a long journey ? Not sure any such engine and fuel exists..
cool concept! But you'd need one hell of a cable :D
NASA proposed a similar plan for it's original 1970s space station concept. However, the reason there are no serious plans to develop artificial gravity spacecraft of any kind is cost. NASA Human Space Flight (HSF) is teetering on the verge of ending because the very best engineers NASA has to offer cannot crack the cost barrier. The private sector has yet to demonstrate they can crack it as well. We only have HSF of astronauts on board ISS who are transported via Russian Soyuz craft. When NASA ISS participation ends, then what? There's lots of talk about going to Mars or back to the moon but no concrete plans that can be seen unfolding the way Apollo did. NASA's budget is currently at 1960 levels as a percentage of fed spending. We won't have any very ambitious projects on that budget. It's the main reasons SLS/Orion is on such a glacial test schedule.
+AdstarAPAD so you're saying artificial gravity requires acceleration?
You don’t need a massive wheel. Two disc shaped modules rotating at the end of a very long cable or truss would do the same job.
Yes, this! The floors could have a slight cylindrical curve matching the circumference of spin. The connection would be several parallel pipe made into a rigid truss.
If that is not important, then just walk up and down slight slopes. The rigid truss is replaced with "light weight" redundant tethers.
I just finished calculating various distance between two tethered Starships vs angular velocity for Mars and Earth gravity.
¿What about that this would be the first stage of the project and you keep expanding it until you have the entire ring-wheel?
Slavko Bogdanic Exactly. You have a 1G living and working base and you just extend out from each end as you need more space.
*Big B r A i N time!*
@@sirnikkel6746 big brain drain
My mind has been sufficiently blown. I always thought artificial gravity was just science fiction; I had no idea that it could actually be a thing!
Just physics
This effect happens in the spinning rides too or something like that
im really curious to what might happen if you throw a ball, will the spinning affect its trajectory? would it be minimal?
@@rc-pf1wq I'm more concerned about what happnes if you jump? Ever tied jumping on a bus or train? I sit like that where lanind is difficult or would you not notice?
@@rc-pf1wq
Yup. The spin would definitely affect its trajectory. Its called the coriolis force and it is a real thing on earth itself. Snipers need to account for it when they are aiming at something sufficiently far off.
If I heard correctly, it says 1 million tons. World aluminum production is about 30 million tons annually. If it takes 5 yrs to build, that would be 200 thousand tons a year and the world aluminum market would just barely notice the effect.
Yeah, you are correct. As of 2017, the total global annual aluminium production stands at about 60 mil tonnes. Carrying this payload and building in space must be a greater problem as there arent enough resources and manpower to build that big a structure in space. Building ISS itself took around 12 years I suppose.
@Hernando Malinche Why would you have to cut pensions. The resources available in space dwarf those of Earth. The first corporations to exploit them would make their money back in no time. To do this only takes administrative effort... not cost. All upfront costs would be paid back and then ensuring pensions for generations.
Wait for it,...
That's still a lot of recycled cans. (troll face)
@Hernando Malinche thats beside the point. Open it up to private enterprise and the private sector will absorb the cost. Tax it and cover ongoing costs such as policing and regulating it.
@Hernando Malinche It's very difficult to justify cutting pensions either ethically or legally, because ethically speaking pensions are earned and cutting them is cheating people out of what they were promised, and legally they constitute a form of contract so courts are going to have something to say about breaching that contract.
Step 1: Build a space elevator on the equator (Future delivery cost for any space construction will be significantly decreased because of this)
Step 2: Build a small spinning ring station at the counterweight of the space elevator for workers to live in
Step 3: Build dry docks to constructs space vessels with mining vessels as a priority
Step 4: Mine asteroids and the moon for resources exclusively for the use of space travel and construction
Step 5: Build a larger and more average people friendly spinning ring station for civilian use
Step 6: Proliferate civilian space travel
Step 7: Build 2 or 3 more space elevators separating by 120 degrees or 90 degrees on the equator to make space travel more accessible for people of every hemisphere
Step 8: Place solar energy arrays on the counterweights stations to beam back down power to the ground via laser (Because the elevators are so tall, the Earth's shadow won't block the solar arrays, thus allowing them to produce electricity 24/7) With enough of these arrays on the towers and receiving station on land, it will make all fossil fuel and even wind energy obsolete
Step 9: Unlimited clean energy mean slowing down climate changes and possibly reverse it with the added benefits of removing oil as a factor of political conflicts
If they could only find a way to produce Graphene in larger quantities. This would be a big Step on the way to Step 1
Graphene isn't strong enough either, I will make a video about this eventually. I actually specialized in carbon fiber composites for my thesis. A subject I am really passionate about, but people overstate the strength of composite materials. I would say, with a fair bit of confidence, that we will never see a space elevator.
I say even if it seem impossible for such strong material to exist now, we should still chase after it. We will learn something new every attempt we try.
Real Engineering Huh? I thought that Graphene was the only material which could withstand the forces? Sad to hear that this isn't the case at all.
Apparently boron nitride nanotubes and diamond nanothreads are also candidate materials for building a space elevator (though I imagine we're nowhere close to being able to produce those in significant enough quantities to be used for that purpose).
I’m gonna be honest the math in the description helped me more than a 30 minute lecture from my physics teacher
Same UA-cam is my teacher
The fact that it’s even possible is amazing
Just build the spaceship around my ex-wife. Gravity problem solved.
Hiiiiiiiiiiiiyo!
Rim shot lolol
lol'd hard
That would mean that she is also attractive ;)
Damn ... LOL
My bike can't create its own gravity because it's two-tired.
HA ha.... ha............... ha
I chuckled
I hate my life
That's a good one :-)
Nice
thanka for that dude 😂
great work, really! Love your content!
0:15 so basicly laziness costs life in space.
I know it's a strange comparison, since it has many factors to look at. But imagine a country like USA used their military budget on science and space programs instead, they could have colonized Mars then
MrDeaz yeah and we would have been nuked by now
But I get what your saying that would be awesome
Unfortuately Trump has also said he wants money put into exploring the rest of the solar system rather than colonizing mars, which sucks because i think we need to go expand because im afraid of what humanity is doing/will do to this planet if all of this war continues. Also imagine what the mars colonies would be like, no war, very little conflict, only progress, and lots of resources, heaven in my view
I could imagine that war on Earth will end when we find another planet to attack. Considering back in the early days, it was tribes against tribes, then cities, then countries, now big military alliances vs countries.
MrDeaz Your right, we need an alien invasion or something similiar. Suddenly all of humanity would shit themselves and huddle together for survival
Why do you need a complete ring? As you say, it's complicated and costly. Why not build something shaped like this > (======) or the beam on that beam engine shown at 5:26 - with a long central spoke for systems and storage and short curved pods for habitation at each end. Then just spin the whole thing to create gravity in the pods. You could always extend the end pods into bigger arcs as time and money allows.
EASYTIGER10 I agree. It doesn't even have to be semetrical. Put your people on one side, have a long cable, and put your supplies on the other.
If one side is more massive, it will move in smaller circles, so both ends would have the same centripetal force.
Rapidly crossing into varying gravitational forces like that can have adverse effects on the equilibrium
That is what Zubrin et al proposed in their Mars Direct plan, albeit on a small scale, of course. The ship at one end of a long tether, and the spent upper stage of the booster at the other end, rotating around each other. Artificial gravity (at least a fraction of Earth's) for the way to Mars, so the astronauts get there healthy and ready to go.
This is where physics turns into mechanical engineering. The materials would have to be much stronger if the structure is unbalanced or unsymmetrical. A circle is just simply the most stable structure.
Have something looking quite like this: 8=====D~ and your home free. ^.^
>Starts the video on how centrifugal force will develop in a rotation frame of refrence
OH YEAH
exactly the same thing what I was searching for, thankyou very much!
The cost would be a lot lower if we just mined, processed, and assembled the materials in space rather than trying to haul them up out of Earth's gravity well. I mean, setting up the infrastructure would be expensive, but it's a good investment. I'm excited for asteroid mining.
It's cool, but it's like Satellite recycling, It might be a cost effective genius idea, but the mythical powers that be say "no" so, no. Seriously though, space is probably the biggest frontier for logic failures.
It's when watching vids like these, it really saddens me to think about how we spend as much as 95% of our total time and energy on either making little plastic-gadgets to sell to eachother, or new ways of killing eachother. Usually both. When it is too expensive building a spacestation, say, 700 meters across; building extraction-, processing- and launchfacilities on the moon; all those neat scifi-ish things that it is actually within our capabilities to do - it is because we *choose* it to be too expensive.
Yeah, the cost is not even that much. Heck, the Pentagon loses that much money all the time.
And that is pretending the best technology we have to get to space is spaceX and Rocketry, which honestly it isn't.
Well, I've seen the youtube vids and heard the talks, and while people like Steven Greer and things like his disclosure project are fascinating to the extreme, my standpoint is that the only thing Iknow with absolute certainty is that I don't know anything. So when thinking 'seriously' about humans in space, I put all that aside as, say, inspiration for if I feel like writing a scifi novel. Seriously, then, I think there are some interesting developements going on in our efforts to reach space in a permanent way, efforts that build directly on top of what makes most of world's populace tick, and the social structures that made us so: Entertainment. I've been following this dutch-based initiativ, MarsOne, that wants to put a permanently settled colony on Mars, and they want to fund it by making it into a reality-TV show. And they are having succes with this business model, having got more than adequate funding for their preliminary work and testing, and also been promised additional funding as conclusions lead to new tests and further on the construction of various earthside fascilities that serves spacebound purposes. It's even worded like this because they want to keep their options open for any nano-material revolutions that might be happening sometime soon. In the background they also got a lot of scientific interest going for them - obviously - for also, sort of incidentally - being in the process of creating a platform for absolutely groundbreaking scientific research. And not only in space-relevant hard thechs; physics, mathematics, astrology, but also soft sciences as sociology and antropology. Even completely new branches that might have enourmous impact on the already established ones, like exo-allsortsofology. It's nuts how much momentum they got, and best of all is that it could not have gotten any weirder if Douglas Adams himself had come up with it.
The thing is just that we don't need a station like that. It would serve no purpose other than very expensive and dangerous living space and labs.
You know the problem isn't about our capability of doing it. We could also build a high speed vacuumed train tunnel between US and EU. Then why don't we just do that? Because there is just no need at the moment while planes can do the same thing for cheaper. There is no need to build factories on the moon while we can still obtain elements from earth alot cheaper or there is no need for a gigantic space station while we can do all the science we need in a smaller one. We also don't need a space station to live on as long as there is nothing wrong with earths atmosphere or we don't run out of living space on earth.
What you say would only be possible if our society advances to a point that manufacturing of food, transportation, telecommunication, policing, medical care, and so on is handled by machines. In that society people would no longer need to perform manual labour or even work to maintain their basic lifestyles. Work would be available in order to obtain a sense of accomplishment in life and only those driven by curiosity or a sense of duty would persue it. Only in a society like this can we do what you describe. In our current society which is ruled by money we just can't pursue greatness, everything is bound to profit.
Always love how you explain it with physics formula
Too bad there isn't already a large ball of rock rotating in an orbit around earth- we could build on THAT.
Kirk, I own a lumberyard and an Island, but until I’ve built a Boat my Island retreat just isn’t going to happen.
@@575drv there are plenty of boats/rockets go to the Moon, funny how we can't seem to get back to where we already been
Now only if we had the ability to go to a huge rock near Earth 50 years ago
You're right, there isn't. The Earth is flat and motionless.
It is going to be difficult to move that large ball of rock away from the Earth, and if we did, the Earth would tend to miss it what with the loss of tides, etc.
So, even with RADICALLY conservative (if that is a thing) estimates, the amount of money that was spent on bailing out Wall Street could have built us a one or maybe even more space stations like in 2001. Even considering some dire economic consequences, i'd be inclined to have stations instead of bonuses in the pockets of bankers...
You and me, both. Consider that NASA's entire operating budget is less than was spent annually on just air conditioning of offices and officer's quarters in the war in Iraq. Look it up. The scale is unbelievable and eye-opening.
And ITER budget is less then people annually spend on IPhones. Let's stop wasting money on those silly things?
>one or maybe even more space stations like in 2001.
Why? I mean why building
USAs military budget is the largest compared to anyone in the world. I dont know what they fuk they are doing with all that money.
They are wasting it on the F-35 program ( $1.5 trillion so far).
Almost enough to pay to lift Elysium's raw materials into orbit! See above at 3:37
Some crazy tinfoil hat guy
"Gravity? Gravity isn't real!"
Tell them drdeth2 . They won't listen to me.
ESD
I skydive an i can asure you gravity IS real. What else could pull me back to earth at;
120mph,
193kph,
53.6m/s,
176f/s
Or if you'd prefere 104.3knots.
???
Im pritty sure its grAVity...
Or is it a cartoon???
@@damienboyo3788 A bungie cord could pull you far faster than that.
@@damienboyo3788 check out Vsauces video called which way is down
First video from you i understood fully... Thanks
Ironically, this is crushing my dreams.
$1.6 trillion revolutionary tech : OMGOMG SO EXPENSIVE
iraq's useless war : $2.4 trillion :/
Fade war not really useless. Vietnam was
Flabby Wall1 the US military won Vietnam, but the US congress lost it.
So it would be double the cost of iraq? considering it was 5 trillion (rough estimate)
@Dark Phoenix Islam is not the enemy. The Christian religion saying other Religions are the enemy is actually the fucking enemy.
@Dark Phoenix the catholic church is the enemy, bro.
Why not just use two pods attached to each other by a 200m long cable and spin the whole thing. No need for a ring.
Indeed! Ideally the cable would be a few kilometers long to make spinning slower than 1rpm. We could also use a dummy weight on the other end. Ot just very very long cable. Small dummy weight is probably the cheapest and lightest option
I could be wrong but I seem to remember something like this being done.... not with the intent of artificial gravity but at least tried....
how do you spin it without bending the cable or messing up your orbit
+William Herron I think you'd have to have two rockets on either end to fire at the same time to help keep the orbit stabilized...
Better yet, a super strong rod, so you wouldn't need to waste fuel on the rockets. Although a material that could provide such strength doesn't exist atm, but I could be wrong.
Hey I know this came out 3 years ago but on Netflix there’s a show called Lost In Space and it has rotating circles like you said
Naiyo Seam Why are you commenting that on my comment? and he didn’t say they were new
Spacex may be able to make the spinning ship due to reusable ships and building it in space like the iss
Lost in Space is awful...they made all the men stupid and weak, they have some stupid "we can fight using our minds and not guns!"...and EVERY character is a drama queen.
Tom Baker that’s the dumbest thing I’ve ever heard never speak to me again you jerk
@@spartanbale1878 LOL, you're a whiny little thing aren't you?...you can't handle another person's opinion?...do you cry when someone disagrees with you?...awww, poor baby.
Lost in Space SUCKED, they emasculated every guy, they made the robot some god like being with no REAL purpose but to get in the way, Dr Smith is a JOKE of a character that can't hold a candle to either the 70's version, OR the 1998 film and, I'll repeat..."NO type of military or armed force to defend humans seeking a new home, heck, they deserved to not only be lost but to die off in the void...LOL...remember, you asked for this...I'll allow you the last word before muting you, I can't stand a weak, easily offended baby
It seems the principal thing holding us back from space is gravity.
first, you dont need something so big as the elysium to reduce the gradient effects of your feets and head.. 400m diameter disk is enough in that matter.
You dont need a disk.. you can use just a tether with another habitat for counter weight, or you can use inflatable habitat and you launch them in sections to complete the ring.
Your cost calculations are also pointless, launch cost will be reduce a lot in the comming years, and we will not need nothing of this until 30 years at least.
He did qualify his calculations with "although costs will only go down in coming years".
I don't think working out a solid figure with today's information is pointless. Bit harsh expecting him to calculate costs based on imagined figures from the future.
AngelLestat2 What percent of force difference between a persons feet and head can they handle before becoming disorientated? What is the smallest radius for 2Gs of simulated gravity before it sickens occupants?
AngelLestat2 yep and that's why NASA doesn't use it.
You can't simulate gravity everywhere. That is fiction.
?
You don't need to build a circumference, just two small ships tied by a long thin structure.
Or maybe a single ship with a counterweight like one of those metallic asteroids ?
zanshibumi yeah but the two space shuttle has some gravity pulling the thing tubes closer until it snaps. NASA would need to make the tube extremely strong and that’s the big issue
zanshibumi
AT LAST!!! Someone else who gets it!
Carbon Nanotubes...
zanshibumi- I do not know the country in which you live, so it may be unlikely that you have seen it, but a concept similar to your proposal was featured in the BBC tv series "Star Cops" (which aired on British television around 2004) where the International Space Police visited an American space station that used a module on an extended gantry to provide earth gravity.
Keep the station centered on bearings and centrifugal force outer core with magnetic propulsion. Small grooves on the inner donut enable stopping and go cuts that the ball bearing will stop and go on similar to a rotary engine.
For those wondering, this video was done well before the spaceX starship program.
So building this is definitely possible with starship launching cost and weight it can catry
It’s never going to be built. There isn’t enough aluminum on earth to build it and space mining isn’t a thing because the cost of space mining outweighs the profits gained from it.
Starship these days, kaboom
it does not need to be a large diameter, it only needs to be long , i.e. two masses separated by a long cable spinning around their centre of mass
Exactly what I was thinking!
You save some material that way, but you are losing some comfort and security. Now the only way to get to the other side of the station is through microgravity. And if your tether gets hit by an asteroid, there is way to have a backup that will take the weight, and your living space flies off into space. With a continuous ring, you can walk the entire circumference, and you can have multiple spokes supporting the structure.
Your design also means that you're not maximizing the livable area. Every bit of material you add to make a larger ring also gives you greater surface area in the gravity section. So, if you want to accommodate a lot of people, you'll want to build one large, continuous ring anyway. You just want to work out how much material you can get to build the largest ring possible, for capacity and comfort of inhabitants.
Three masses works well, one in the center for zero-g and docking.
*twang* Goodbye Earth. Hello cold abyss.
Bolo and hourglass habitats address this. They have drawbacks to them that Torus don't. Then the Torus also has drawbacks that an O'Neil Cylinder does not. Really, scaling up makes it more stable and less dependent on fine tuning. If you have a larger and more complex biosphere inside of it, it can handle disruptions easier.
With all of these habitats, wobbles can damage or destroy them. that is another thing that mass addresses. However, the odds of an asteroid striking a cable are probably the same as an asteroid destroying your house.
0:14 , look! a AG ring system comes over the horizon!
this is possible to build with a modular concept. Pretty much like oversized legos - the idea is to create multipurpose modules that can be sent into space, and in space, attached to each other, with interior tech added as required for each specific function. The ring would start with core modules installed, two tethers and 2 bigger sections at each end. Rotation would start then, to ensure gravity in the outer sections. Then more modules would be added to the outer sections, with more tethers as required, until a whole ring was formed.
What if we were to trap an asteroid and accelerate its rotation so that a tunnel just under the surface of the asteroid would have "gravity" similar to Earth? You wouldn't be able to stand on the exterior of the asteroid, but you could dock with it by matching the rotation speed and using some kind of tether.
imagine being a construction worker in space, cat talking aliens and shit.
Kenneth Stodder The term is is "cat calling".
ISRO(Indian Space Research Organisation) can take 1kg material to space under $500. (spacex $1600)
Cost can be cut down to just $1.6 Trillion. Let's do it
500 usd + destroyed cargo
I said no material is leaving this planet as long I am here. Period!
@@kelvin3706 ISRO has been very successful in recent times, though it hasn't reached the incredible feats like NASA and that's because of lack in funding.
ISRO is much cheaper economically compared to other organizations. Period.
Who’d you have to kill to get that username?
@@minibray We don;t kill, we negotiate, we trade or we buy the name. That's what smart people do. satan and his students kills.
Feel free to try this experiment at a merry go round with a fishing pole tied to a ball. Spin the merry go round as fast as you can manage, then hang the ball in the space between the center and bars where it wont be hit or touched by any part of the marry go round.
What you will find is that the ball is not magically drawn to the periphery by "centrifugal force", but rather it will hang there, perfectly still (well, as still as you can hold it).
A centrifuge needs Earth's ( or any other large enough body) gravity to make inertia move an object, and for it wo work effectively, it needs to be on a perpendicular plane to the of the object exerting the gravity (the more parallel the inertia to the gravity, the more "imbalanced load" washing machine effect your will get).
If a centrifuge were operated in the weightlessness of space, for example, what you would get is the opposite of the imbalanced washing machine load effect: no effect whatsoever. You would have a floating object sitting perfectly still in the center of a spinning hollow puck. If somehow the object came into contact with the sides, the surfaces of both would act on one another, but not in any way that can be construed as centrifugal force.
Using dwarves would reduce the speed effect issue.
I'm sorry, but I'm afraid I can't let you do that.
ctrexrhino you forgot, dave
Damn it, Slippy! Stop quoting the enemy!
ctrexrhino Where did ya get that idea?
Dais....ey.... Dai...sey..... giv...e.... me.... your.... an....swer..... doooooooooooo
ctrexrhino Open the pod bay doors Hal!
FWIW: "Space Station V" - the "V" is the roman numeral "5". So it's "Space Station 5".
Not sure, aside lots of roman /greek (pagan)culture there is also a lot of jewish mysticism, V as W are numeric value of *6*
I think this misses the point of the video
@@insertyourfeelingshere8106 You are for one ruff ride on YT, lots of comments miss thee Point, yours is one of the few....
Though GRAVITY was a Pulling force not pushing one (thats is Ether)? It is not CT hoax Advocates that deny centrifugal force :)
i love you i where making a school project and i could use this so thank you
I'm developing a giant space YoYo for making artificial gravity.... I just can't find a big enough middle finger to hang it on...
The artificial gravity craft dose not need to be a circle. All you need to do is connect a conventional space craft to a long pole or tether to a counterweight. The counter weight could be an other conventional space craft or just use old satellite or fuel tanks. No sci-fi magic needed
The main problem with a bolo setup is that it only takes one micrometeoroid impacting that tether to send the two spacecraft hurtling in opposite directions, spiraling out of control. A solid structure would be preferable for long term habitation, both for durability and ease of maintenance. A bolo has a single point of failure that is just too glaringly obvious.
+Irish Identity I agree a tube like structure would be nice so the People could go between the two units with out a space walk. Perhaps redundant tethers also for structural stability and reduced weight.
Have you read Seveneves by Neal Stephenson? Science fiction novel dealing with an apocalyptic event and the survival of humans by going into space.
+Irish Identity no but it sounds awesome I'm going to look it up.
A circle 2ould also be better for long-term travel because the whole point of simulating gravity is to allow the muscles to exercise. It would be much easier to have a torus,like in Seveneves, because of how easy it would be to walk
This makes me wonder about the system they used in 'The Martian'. Where rather than having full wheels they only had 2 wings, each with a part of a circle that seem to balance each other out.
1:52
SpaceX : Hold my beer.
Centrifugal force is crazy there is a strapless spinning ride that spins you and you stick to walk at worlds of fun in KC,MO.
Se but that only works because you accelerate up to teh correct speed.
What happens if you get stopped dead in a centrfugal spacestation? Do you just start ping ponging around? if theres no outside gravity pulling on you to hold you in position and you jump in a space station, while you would be carrie dforwards it would akin to jumping on a moving vehicle, landing would be difficult. And thus walking aorund should be difficult too. Even a smooth moving plate on teh end of a pole would feel slightly off.
Whoa. Channel name is real engineering. Doesn't even go into the whole problem of assembling that structure of that scale in space nor the whole deal about actually getting the workers and machines there to do it.
Can you cover all that in 6 minutes 33 seconds?
+s4ujcd yes
that's the least amount of problem. We have tech for building in space already it all just takes shit ton of time but as we would develop machines it would be faster and faster each year. Just like they develop fucking weapons which can kill you faster with less effort every year which cost more then to build this freaking space station.
When I real some of the top comments on this channel, I get the feeling there aren't very many action engineers or physicists watching. Love the channel though!
@ 5:00 sorry, but I have to disagree. What we can find in the space is raw material, with unknown composition, that has to be processed. So we have to add some extra for bringing the material down to earth and processing, or for a processing plant working in space.
It would be far cheaper to build a bi-anchored space station connected by a tether. That way you just have two small platforms with simulated gravity, vs having an entire ring.
I just showed this video to my physics professor.
He said almost everything you said about centrifugal force was false.
What is wrong about his explanation?
@@michielm5120 He explained that changing perception (reframing the point of reference) changes the forces involved. That's simple not possible, and does not work. The forces and the causes of those forces do not change based on the frame of reference. Nothing is pushing you down, regardless of your perception. Instead, your momentum is being continually resisted and redirected by the "floor" of the rotational object. That's classic centripetal force.
@@jpcrafton69 there is no one absolutely right perception. Someone from out side would say it's momentum and a centripetal force but to the person inside the system the centeifugal force is entirely real.
The perception of the person in the rotating reference frame isn't wrong or less right/accurate. Physics is just a model of the real world. The model for non rotating reference frames isn't better or more right than the model for rotating reference frames
Centrifugal force is absolutely fake. The reference frame doesn’t matter here, the bottom line is the guy is always spinning around in a circle meaning he always has an acceleration towards the center of the circle meaning that the centripetal force pulling in is NOT balanced out. Centrifugal force is an “inertial force” which essentially means it’s a phenomenon caused by a bodies desire to stay in motion and an unbalanced external force pushing against it. But and inertial force is not a force, it’s more like an illusion
@@CullenMorris97 I think everyone here knows what it is and that's it is a fictious force, but none the less, for the person in a rotating reference frame, it's real.
You say the bottom line is that the guy is always going round in circles, but that's only in a non rotating reference frame. In a rotating reference frame he is standing still.
There is no right answer for if he is going round in circles or not. It's same as with speed. If I'm on my bycicle doing 15 km/h, how fast am I going? There is no absolute right answer. Sure, I'm doing 15 km/h with respect to earth. But why would earth be the best / only reference.
at 1:36 what they do not explain is that he is in "effect" walking up hill (in the centrifuge) the whole time
I gotta admit, you’re awesome bro
"But what if money weren't an issue?"
*Seconds later:* "It would still be an issue."
Hi Real Engineering, so if you jump in a centrifugal "artificial gravity" what would make you come down again?
The same thing that made you go down in the first place, inertia.
okay, so if I float in orbit and someone put a cenfrifuge around me ( with the same trajectory so there is no contact ) I would somehow be attracted to the sides of the centrifuge? ( if the jump negates the inertia )
No, if you somehow magically appeared inside it, you would float above it. That isn't going to happen though, you will either be inside it while it accelerates or you will climb down from the center of rotation. The structure will need to transfer inertia to you.
oh yea that is logical but it sounds to be a quite tricky system in practice if you would treat it like a normal space station. Love the video BTW. kudos
+Mathias Petersen. is this in a vacuum or air? it would make a difference
You could also have two modules connected by a long truss or cable then rotate the whole system. This way you could have large radius w/o much material.
The other large problem, not mentioned in the video, is that you need a fixed point, a source of leverage, around which to create that centrifugal spin. All of the spinning objects shown in the video are attached to something at the middle, allowing the outer structure to spin. In space, there would be no point of leverage around which to spin. Even if you put 1000 rockets around the perimeter, all facing and firing in the same direction, you wouldn't be able to control the oscillation in a single plane, which would be needed to keep it stable, and the structure would likely rip itself apart from the massive torsion created by the uncontrolled oscillation.
If you could somehow overcome all of these issues, then centrifugal force could absolutely create the kind of artificial gravity in space that was proposed in the video. Unfortunately, I have yet to see or hear a good solution for the aformentioned problems, so it remains a largely moot point.
Damn! Another effing technical hurdle! I wonder what Gerard O'Neil and other physicists would say about it?
Question for you.
If you set up a artifical gravity ring and spin it up to speed and its sides were open, if you moved from outside the ring into the rings cavity/walkway without touching anything would you be sucked down to the floor or merely float through the gaps?
Hi, Real Engineering, I have a question for you. Is the centrifugal governer spinning clockwise or counterclockwise?
Neither, it's a 2D animation that I forgot to apply scale to. Still learning this animation stuff.
Wow! I didn't think you'd reply. I just found your channel recently and have really enjoyed the videos of yours that I've watched. The animations look fantastic by the way.
It doesn't matter. The fact that you can't even tell the difference should tell you something about relativity of that kind of things :)
The only problem is centrifugal force doesn't work in high orbit.Centrifugal force requires at least some Gravity in order to work.
I don't know how you got that idea, but no, centrifugal force is a force separate from gravity. You do not need gravity for it to work.
I knew this was possible as a child way before it became popular. You ever come across the carnival ride that looked like a diamond or a ufo and it spinned really fast and held you against the wall. (I came across it in America.) After it sped up and when it started slowing down you could walk on the walls for a short amount of time.
I’ve been in one of those
Except you just got strapped in and since there isn’t any outside frame of reference it just feels like superstrong sideways gravity
So if we connect two Starships on a tether so the habitation decks are 684 meters apart and accelerate to one RPM, then we get Mars surface gravity.
684 m at one rev per 60 sec.
Or 1000 m at one rev per 72.5 sec.
Or 1789 m at one rev per 97 sec.
To get Earth surface gravity, we could lengthen the cable to 1789 meters between decks and accelerate to 1 RPM.
Or 1000 meters at 1.338 RPM
Or 447.28 meters at 2 RPM.
Or 111.82 meters at 4 RPM.
Starship has several deck levels, so the slower RPM and longer tether is preferred to keep the gravity more similar between decks.
Connecting the ships together at the tail ends may reduce tether stress because the heavy engines and partially filled tanks would be closer together. Certainly, the tethers would be shorter.
For more immediate purposes, it would not be better to simulate a smaller gravitational force (about 3.5 m/s) as this would allow for smaller and cheaper stations.
This gravity is enough for astronauts to stay healthy and walk without problems and even leave the "ring" for the microgravity laboratories.
Obviously this would only work on medium orbit, high orbit and interplanetary ships.
Correct me if I'm wrong, I just thought this.
Really nice video. Subscribed! Supose it would be possible to create a RingWorld with 8.000 km ?(Yes, Bigger than Earth) radious, how fast would it need to spin to simulate Earth gravity?
If you built it with radius somewhere between 75 000 - 85 000 km radius (I don’t now how to calculate certain number) , it would need to spin once a day, soo you can connect it with space elevators. Speed would be between 6 and 7 km/s
A giant fidget spinner!!!
👏N👏E👏P👏H👏E👏W👏
Maybe if you have a simple, quaint mind.
Seriously.............?😂
Stfu
Every time I make some artificial gravity, my cat comes in and soaks it up
I think a cylinder shape is also considerable. There will be central axis with long flat floor inside the cylinder & while it spin we can stick to one side either the right part of the floor. Or the down part of left side floor. But we would stick.
What are those things hanging off that dude's legs?
The guy walking around the loop...
to cancel out earths gravity. this artificial gravity is designed for space, so they need other stuff for it to work when there already is gravity
William Herron riiiiiight Thanks
he's hanging by wires on his side. Kinda like a hollywood ninja movie. You're looking down from above and the spinning drum is flat on the ground.
It's simulating weightlessness in a 2D and ignores the depth.
Cause its not real gravity, its simulated gravity by just duplicating centrifugal force - if he stops moving -he's screwed. Artificial gravity is just fantasy thinking, because they can't even explain what gravity is. It's funny how they refer to space as having microgravity now - what a joke.
All I can think about is The Gravity Chamber in DBZ...our power level, next we need senzu beans
Gravity doesn’t exist and you’re not pull to earth, you’re pushed to earth by the AETHER, but this is a lot of sand for your pickup truck, read the German Patent SCHAPPELLER DEVISE.
@Ayob Aref You tell me, this is not the issue here the topic here is bull shit gravity and antigravity without physical proof.
And you didn't bother to read and study Karl Schappeller Devise's patent, so why am I going to bother teaching rogues.
@@joseinfante5054 bruh
I have the impression rotational "gravity" will only work if the persons or objects are stationary, the centripetal force keeping them normal to the rotating surface. However as soon as the individual stands and attempts to walk, in one direction or the other, the effects of said gravity are not what one expects.
One of my uncles (once removed) works at NASA on the Mars 2020 lander project, and I asked him about this. He said you’d need to make the thing more than fifteen kilometers in diameter or anyone standing in the thing would get sick from the difference in G-forces acting on the head compared to the feet. The largest metal thing not reliant on concrete for support ever built was the Seawise Giant (scrapped 2010), which was only 458.45 meters long, to put in perspective how inconceivably massive this ‘space station’ would have to be. Keep in mind, the ISS needs to fire the engines of it’s transport rockets every once in a while just to stave off orbital decay, not to mention dodging derbis. This thing would have to be sturdy enough to pull off those maneuvers at that scale.
It came clear to me that we are dealing with two different definition of the word "force".
There is only 4 forces, so the inertia of a mass accelerated (providing an external source of energy) or decelerating (wasting energy as heat, like in brakes or a car crash) is not part of these 4 forces.
Debating on the word force often degenerate in a "deaf dialogue", which means two people will defend their point and think that the other is a total idiot. For the "word purist", it is absolutely forbidden to use "force" when describing inertia or Coriolis for example. On the other hand, those who try to understand what is really going on may think that his "adversary" deny the existence of inertia or Coriolis. If we can not only feel but objectively measure the motion of object in a car the accelerate or break abruptly, then don't tell me this is "fictious"... it is real.
When we take the time to define the meaning of the words we use, it become clear that there is no real difference..
As an A level student many years ago, I remember the physics teacher saying ‘there is no such thing as centrifugal force, it is actually centripetal force’.
The words don't seem to effect the outcome though. What difference does it make what you call it?
Centripetal force is what makes you move in a circle.
Centrifugal force is what you feel.
So they are opposite each other.
@@TexMex421This is late as hell but it does matter. Centrifugal (does not exist, apparent because of the latter) and centripetal (certainly exists) are two different concepts (both are hard to explain in words in this comment).
@@TexMex421 Centrifugal force is not really it's own force, but rather, it is the apparent effect of a normal force. Centripetal is the force that accelerates a mass on a rotating body outward.
@@zachb9440 Saying it DOES matter what name you call the force reminds me of the people who "don't believe in gravity". They may not believe, but that also don't float away.
If I were spinning a hamster in a sling over my head, but then said the force imparted by the string was named Steven, and the outward force perceived by the hamster was Brenda, how would things change?
The Hamster is named Gregory Fatcheeks btw.
Simple approach: magnetic boots coupled with some sort of strong elastic rubberband type material tied to the limbs.
That would not replace gravity. Your skeleton needs a force on the mass of your body like an inertial force.
@@darklordofbavaria6398 that comment was from 2 years ago, but thanks for the reply 😊. Maybe couple that with a body suit that squeezes you? What simple cost effective alternative do you suggest?
@@wazzawizza4181 I don't know any less expensive alternative which can replace gravity. I am not an expert of the result for the human body, but it isn't the same and I think that the body would react differently.
Amazing analysis, thanks!
And I enjoyed the very end - knew what a governor looked like, but never understood how a governor worked!
Whoever says centrifugal gravity is not possible is an idiot and have clearly never taken a basic Physics course in school. When an objects spins, centripetal acceleration acts on the objects and the displacement of that acceleration is towards the center of the path the object travels. Go fast enough to have your acceleration 9.8 m/s^2 and boom, you have replicated "gravity"
Its ShonenLad
Newtons forces acting on said thing basically?
As you said: It's centripetal acceleration that creates the "gravity". So people who say that centrifugal gravity isn't possible probably just mean that there is no such thing as centrifugal gravity but centripetal gravity. I definitly agree that it's stupid for people to argue like that but it's right in a way
Lol just go to any county fair, the ride goes by many names, but in it you lay on the wall and it starts spinning fast and the walls start to move up and down and you can feel the force keeping you against the wall
It's not a force it is normal acceleration! But I understand the confusion.
why not make real gravity, and just put some boxes and tape it to the bottom of the station?
Vlad The Inhaler Do you understand how gravity works?
#InThe Butt yeah the more mass the more your pulled to it , so if there's more mass at the bottom of the station, the more your pulled towards it, so if they store their stuff on the bottom of the station they can stand
Vlad The Inhaler But you can't fit that amount of mass on à space station
#InThe Butt yeah you can it's called tape
lol the boxes would do nothing you would need like septillions of boxes to even create a tiny bit of gravity
5:21 Nice prediction. We are here 👏🏼
I've never seen anyone notice that the habitat ring that Gary Lockwood is jogging in is way too big in comparison to the pod bays. Clever trick! 😜
That's Balls Out!
Why do not bond two modules using a steel cable? This way you can bond two small modules but the structure itself will have a huge diameter limited only by the steel cable lenght.
Zubner's Mars Plan uses this method. There would be a crew compartment and a storage module connected by a long cable spinning around a center of mass.
pretty clever
Cables snap, and if the linking cable were to snap the two modules would be slung off into outer space in opposite directions making rescue impossible because the main ship which is traveling forward would not be able to change direction to retrieve the modules. Think of it like if you were traveling in a car and something you were holding out the window fell, the car would continue it's forward motion and the fallen item would be left behind. In a car you can slow down and back up and maybe find the item because gravity stopped it and it's laying on the ground somewhere. But in space the two modules would continue to travel away from you because there is no friction to slow them down.
I forgot to mention the properties of metal work differently in space then on Earth. The repeated heating and cooling of the metal in the cable would make it brittle... almost insuring eventual failure. Especially if it's under tension as both modules are pulling on it through centrifugal force. This is why you always see the wheel spokes structure used in these designs. Because if 1 section fails the rest can bare the load... the spokes also distribute load evenly around the entire circumference of the circle helping the whole thing to be much stronger then if you just had two modules at opposite ends
*twang* Goodbye Earth. Hello cold abyss.
what do you mean "get into orbit"? It would be built in orbit
Yeah but you have to get the materials required to build it in space, so yes you do need to get it to orbit.
Sekrit Dokuments Meteors are rich in building resources
Sow how many meteors do you have that would supply that amount of mass flying by the earth so close and so slow that you could capture them? ah yeah... none
Ok cool! You get on that.
Blockbuster2033 theres actually a lot like that
I know this video is old but you should do a video on artificial gravitiy in a rod. Essenstially, it'd be a spacecraft shaped as a long tube (which for the most part they are anyway). The tube would then be spun after reaching its desired orbit or perhaps after doing its last burn sending it to Mars. At the tips of the tube would be 1 G where the astronauts would sleep and exercise to maximize the benefits. This removes the need for a massive space station to avoid differential acceleration. Also, it is in general a much more resource efficient method to achieve artificial gravity.
1:05
I think centrifugal force is generated for a reason other than you said: our brain makes us think that the place we are in is stationary and we are the ones who move. For example, when you turn a car to the right, in reality the car is moving to the right, but our minds tell us that we are moving to the left (the relative moviment between us and the car); so, in its conception, there has to be a force to the left aplied in us, the centrifugal force.
You said that it is because that, in a non-inertial reference frame of our body, everything but us is moving, but that's not the actual reason for the perseived force, if our brain really took that perspective, for it the body would stationary and the rest would be moving, in that case it would perseive no force in the body thus no centrifugal force.
Actually, the brain takes the non-inertial reference of the place it is in, not of our body, so it ends up thinking the body is moving and the place is stationary. Which means that the place is inertial and the body has a force in it, the centrifugal one. That's is actually amazing, and shows how cool the nature of out minds can be.
Question should be “can we simulate gravity”.
Reece still wouldn’t hv it actually
Yes, but not as this idiot describes it is ridiculous and will never be tried.
Gravity doesn’t exist and you’re not pull to earth, you’re pushed to earth by the AETHER, but this is a lot of sand for your pickup truck, read the German Patent SCHAPPELLER DEVISE.
José Infante no thanks bro I don’t want to lower my iq
José Infante get your head out of the clouds or should I say the Aether and come down to reality. Gravity has been proven already, it is fact and whether you choose to believe it or not is up to you.
@@TeckPanda Where's YOUR proof? Like all the tests of the damn physicists, in a 100 mm plastic disc ..!
If the force of gravity is greater at your feet than at your head, that doesn't mean more blood will go to your feet. Gravity is always pulling blood down your body and a lessened degree of it isn't going to increase the pull.
Jarrett, at the surface of the Earth, the differential is small and we've evolved to handle it. On a small, rotating station, the differential would be significant and enough to cause problems described in the video. Fighter pilots for example have to tense the muscles in their lower body when making high speed turns to keep the blood from going to their feet and passing out.
It’s a matter of understanding the definitions of centrifugal and centripetal. Our schools have failed.
One thing is certain gravity is not the force working to create artificial gravity. Consider the attraction mass has does not require spinning, think on it
lol that would be amazing , centrifugal forces working outside of a gravity field. lmfao
centrifugal force is a planets gravitational field that either pushes away or pulls something into the planet ( usually pulls into the planet and sends crashing to the ground)
once inside the planet the centrifugal force spreads out to a less gravitational amount so that objects on the ground stay on the ground to equal the force of gravity the outer wall made for the center to stay constant. also the speed the outside of the planet turns makes the temperature on the inside , fast or slow makes the temperature that space sends to our planet, we need to make a ball that moves very fast on the outside and very slow on the inside to make gravity
You're favorite invention is where the term "Balls to the wall." comes from.
Bobby Jones Jay Leno taught me that lol.
T Abel I saw that video as well. Jay Leno's Steam engine was awesome. I completely forgot about that until you mentioned it.
I'm slightly disappointed to know that although I guess my balls are relieved...
"Balls to the wall" is a term coined to describe Chuck Norris walking into a building smaller than an aircraft hanger
What does that term mean I don't really feel like looking it up because I might find something weird
So basically pretty much anything is possible when you have 500,000 people who each have more than 10,000,000$ contributing.
This is a variation on the Musk strategy to colonize Mars (as outlined by waitbutwhy): make a travel pass cheap enough that there are one million people willing to pay for a one-way trip.
common good ? Its not in my interest to send a bunch of people into space (or myself for that matter).
It is however in my interest to send robots into space who mine the asteroids and/or planets, transform the resources into usable products and send those to earth for us to use.
That way we can stop destroying and depleting the earth and make it a paradise with all the dirty manufacturing stuff happening in space.
And then, in time, the robot factory complex in space can grow and ultimately prepare other planets for us to inhabit. I expect the space mining to start in this century, to mature in the next and 2 or 3 centuries down the line i suppose we can start inhabiting other planets. We dont need to make huge investments for non-sustainable projects now. If we start doing what is interesting for us now (space mining), soon there will be an infrastructure that allows us to colonize planets in a more sustainable way. Not by having many people pay for sending a few people, but by having self replicating robots basically do everything for free while we sit on our asses and just worry about keeping control of the AI instead of it controlling us.
it's not in your interest to send a bunch of people into space? Then what the fuck is all bellow you wrote? Point is space travel. Traveling to another planets. Seeing new unseen shit. Spreading ourselves among the universe meeting new people along the way (aliens)... BUT assholes rather chose to spend money on wars.
Anything is possible for humans when a monetary system and the ego are out of the way.
So many communists ITT.
Yeah bro, you just earned my subscription. The video was excellent, explanation and all, but that bit at the end about the centrifugal governor definitely sealed the deal!
So you’re telling me that we could build a whole ass Elysium if we just got our shit together
this is why we need a base with factories on the moon.
mine that sucker out.
YOu touch that moon and I will deal with you. When you balance your car's wheel, see those little weights around the circumference? That is the moon. Take is away and you will see. We calibrated the moon and gave it a precise diameter to do the job. Don't you mess with it!
@@bubbaole9036 The moon is mostly silicates and has gained mass in the form of galactic wind and asteroid impacts. we could extract all of it's metals and it would barely make a difference.
The moon is more important for Deuterium extraction.
Talyn Edmonton True, asteroids would make a better source, the moon is a very rich source in helium 3 and may be one of the only places to get it in the solar system.
There is no mining on the moon. How to mine on a hollow sphere anyway?
@@Ghredle Moon isn't hollow, what would make you think that? Movies?
Astroid mining + 3-D Printing
3D printers will conquer the galaxy
Imagine if all our resources, research, and education went towards solving problems with exploring and colonizing space instead of fighting each other. We'd accomplish unimagineable things.
see magnetic paddings but with the right particle , current and tension (voltage)