XPost: sci.space.policy
From: vincent@triumfunspam.ca.retro.com
In sci.space.tech, on Fri, 10 Mar 2006 08:39:49 +0000,
Peter Fairbrother sez:
` Lawrence Gales wrote:
` > (a) Instead of the spheres or cylinders which cannot be made small
` > w/o sacrificing gravity, the Stanford Torus can be scaled down
` > dramatically while retaining full 1 gee
` What is this obsession with spheres, torii (toruses?) and cylinders? It's
` very earth-bound thinking. As is the desire for one g, but let that slide.
` Two modules with a long rope between them. Set them spinning, and you have
` any gravity you like. In any size you like. Space is big, there is plenty of
` room.
` The longer the rope, the flatter the apparent gravity field - which is
` something you can't do easily with a sphere, cylinder or torus, you have to
` make those huge. Also it is less dizzy-making. And all it costs is a bit of
` rope.
Not impossible, but there are two issues here. If the modules at each
end are active (as opposed to one being an inert counterweight), you
would want to be able to get from one to the other without performing
heroic measures (vacuum suit scrabbling). More importantly, docking
a ship and transferring supplies would be far too difficult without
a docking facility at the spin axis. These considerations drive the
design to a "dumbell", with a pressurized access tube and central
loading bay module rather than a simple rope. This of course has been
proposed before, the model being one of adding module pairs as needed
until you have built up a full circle.
--
==========================================================================
vincent@triumf[munge].ca Pete Vincent
Disclaimer: all I know I learned from reading Usenet.
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
