We see it differently, then. BG taking "a very different approach" all the way down a checklist was the point I was trying to make, and I think they did literally that, checklist and all.
Would you like a bsg style reboot of Star trek?
- Thread starter Faria
- Start date
We see it differently, then. BG taking "a very different approach" all the way down a checklist was the point I was trying to make, and I think they did literally that, checklist and all.
We will also need artificial gravity in real life as well when we send ships into deep space as a species; humans won't be able to survive without it reinforcing our skeletal structure. So somebody will have to figure it out somehow (perhaps rotating sections, as has been already figured out by many scientists and designers.)
Actually, humans will probably live just fine without gravity - only they will not be able to function in gravity fields.
And, as you mentioned, we can already do artificial gravity via centrifugal force.
"Artificial gravity" for such purposes is pretty much a non-problem.
That's unproven, especially when it comes to reproduction, childhood development, and old age. Besides, humans living in space will need to endure acceleration, such as when rockets are firing. Being in good health, by terrestrial standards, might well end up being essential.
In engineering, there's no such thing as a non-problem.
Unproven, but highly likely.
As for enduring temporary acceleration - 0 G grown humans should be able to withstand it, much as we can endure a few Gs worth of acceleration.
All of these being problems if humans do not use centrifugal force for creating gravity AKA if they are stupid enough to deliberately make these problems
Sure it is - they are also called already solved problems.
Link?
The problem of how to build bridges has been solved, yet they still fall down. Wear and tear always creates problems.
Spacecraft with rotating sections will entail their own sets of problems, such as how to avoid catastrophic destruction of the spacecraft, if a section should get hit by space debris.
I read once that it was impossible to design the International Space Station as a 2001-style donut wheel because, in real life, there are no construction materials strong enough to withstand the stresses it would entail.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Valeri_Polyakov
Plus all other humans who stayed in space for prolonged periods.
You are moving the goalposts:
I said creating artificial gravity via centrifugal force is a solved problem.
NOT that making this technology (or any technology) infallible is a solved problem.
Last edited:
We are not talking about ringworlds or orbitals.
O'Neill colonies are feasible with materials known 30 years ago - and they are far larger than mere ships.
Sorry, I see nothing there that supports what you're saying or contradicts what I said. In fact, I'll see you and raise you. From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weightlessness#Human_health_effects:
Spaceflight osteopenia is a serious problem, and it places a significant burden of proof on anyone asserting that people conceived, developed, born, and raised in space will be able to withstand acceleration, especially that of one or more gees.
We won't really know until people are conceived, developed, and born in weightless environments, but science fiction authors such as Niven, and others, write that such people can never return to Earth.
I moved no goalposts. I simply pointed out that there is a gulf between solving a problem on paper and solving one in practice. The problem is not completely solved until it is solved in practice.
As yet, we have no space stations or spacecraft with centrifugal gravity.
Until such time as those things exist, we cannot boast that it is an already solved problem. You can't speak of things that have never existed in the past tense.
There are no people born and raised in space.
The closest are astronauts/cosmonauts/etc.
In 0 g one suffers principally bone and muscle loss. That doesn't cause one to drop dead in space; nor does it prevent one from withstanding the g stresses of reentry.
The bone/muscle mass is recuperated on earth in ~6 months.
As such - all available evidence is that humans can survive 0 g and acceleration in 0 g.
People born in 0 g can't return to earth? Maybe, maybe not; no proof either way.
But they are likely to be able to live in 0 g and to withstand g forces there.
So, you agree that centrifugal gravity is a reality.
You just don't agree that we can build in practice a rotating structure - despite the fact that we have all the tools needed AKA there are no problems beyond actually crossing the ts?
If, in these conditions, humans can't build a rotating habitat, then I'm sorry to say we'll never expand into space: we just don't have the brain power - by a significant margin.
Well, it couldn't hurt.
I stand corrected. Yet my point that dismissing the engineering as merely "crossing the ts" stands.
We landed men on the moon and safely returned them to Earth. We know how to build manned spaceships. That does not make spaceflight a "non-problem". Look at Challenger, Columbia, and Apollo 13, if you think otherwise.
If we're voting, I'm with the guys who say that actually building a habitable, space-going structure with rotation for gravity will be a huge engineering challenge and there's no guarantee it could be done at all.
The rotating container is a simple concept, but the closer you get to actual hardware that can support human life, the harder it becomes to assemble.
NASA would sell the idea to Congress with reasonable-sounding cost and schedule estimates. Five years and a hundred billion dollars, they'd promise. Then, once NASA had its funding, the schedule would start to slip and the cost would balloon. Twenty years and half a trillion dollars later, Congress would pretty much know they'd been had.
The rotating container is a simple concept, but the closer you get to actual hardware that can support human life, the harder it becomes to assemble.
NASA would sell the idea to Congress with reasonable-sounding cost and schedule estimates. Five years and a hundred billion dollars, they'd promise. Then, once NASA had its funding, the schedule would start to slip and the cost would balloon. Twenty years and half a trillion dollars later, Congress would pretty much know they'd been had.
My point stands as well:
"If, in these conditions, humans can't build a rotating habitat, then I'm sorry to say we'll never expand into space: we just don't have the brain power - by a significant margin."
We built hugely expensive and not very safe ships that could at most get people to the moon.
We never solved the problem of spaceflight - not even close.
As for your comparison between centrifugal gravity and spaceships:
Centrifugal force creating gravity is a non-problem, not building spaceships.
Ah! So building spaceships is a problem, but building spaceships to do things they've never done before is a non-problem. Got it!
Again with moving the goalposts:
Centrifugal force creating gravity is the same as building spaceships for you? Really?
