One Revolution per Minute [video](erikwernquist.com)
erikwernquist.com
One Revolution per Minute [video]
https://erikwernquist.com/one-revolution-per-minute
159 comments
Erik also made "Wanderers" about this feeling, quoting Carl Sagan. Highly recommend watching it: https://erikwernquist.com/wanderers
I thought this was the same person. Love Wanderers!
Saw his name in the domain and came here to mention Wanderers. I just rewatched it again recently while showing it to someone. Amazing.
Don’t we all feel the urge to sail forbidden seas?
I recently finished reading SciFis Delta-V and squeal Critical Mass by Daniel suarez. Loved this kind of hard scifi. in the second book he went into great details on how the first orbital station and complementary moon/asteroid mining platform was build and incrementally deployed. Definitely recommended if you are into it. It seems quite within the the reach of our capabilities, We just need to find a economic model that allows it.
I'm writing a hard sci-fi novel and am looking for alpha readers. Contact me if interested:
https://dave.autonoma.ca/
https://dave.autonoma.ca/
It's probably just adaptive to the species for some of us to be driven to set out on journeys to new places, and so we have it built into our emotions.
The emotion it conjures up is rather nice, kind of bitter sweet and expansive at the same time. It seems to stimulate the imagination to contemplate it even if you never actually go anywhere.
“Ships at a distance have every man's wish on board. For some they come in with the tide. For others they sail forever on the same horizon, never out of sight, never landing until the Watcher turns his eyes away in resignation, his dreams mocked to death by Time. That is the life of men.”
― Zora Neale Hurston, Their Eyes Were Watching God
The emotion it conjures up is rather nice, kind of bitter sweet and expansive at the same time. It seems to stimulate the imagination to contemplate it even if you never actually go anywhere.
“Ships at a distance have every man's wish on board. For some they come in with the tide. For others they sail forever on the same horizon, never out of sight, never landing until the Watcher turns his eyes away in resignation, his dreams mocked to death by Time. That is the life of men.”
― Zora Neale Hurston, Their Eyes Were Watching God
If it helps, consider that the reality of space exploration is not quite the romantic vision we see :) [1]
Let's assume we have advanced but still physically plausible technology. The universe is huge. The Solar system is huge. Getting anywhere takes forever! Months, to years (can be shorted with very large energy expense, but you only go faster with the square root of energy!).
Shielding from radiation requires large barriers. So you need to spend most time in a relatively small quarters guarded by large mass barriers (magnetic fields might help a little too). Everything about living in space will probably be a mix of boring, hard/confined and extremely costly.
This kind of yearning makes me remember something that Richard Feynman said. It's something like (paraphrasing) "We know almost everything about the universe, the nature of forces, even how life works; the forces that bind everything together are known to astounding, extraordinary precision -- pretty much all phenomena relevant at all to every day life. Yet when I meet someone who isn't a physicist, they will ask almost immediately "So what don't we know about physics? What unsolved problems are there?". There's so much we do know and they're not interested in that! And it's so fascinating!". (I think that deserves a name, like "Feynman syndrome", or something :P
Like the physics we already do know (and the mathematics as well) is astounding, fascinating, I think so is where we can go, and where we can observe. Like, the Earth (and its lifeforms!) is absolutely astounding. If you go a block around your house, with a keen eye, there are probably interesting enough things to spend a lifetime studying. A single species of insect, a species of tree, microscopic polen in the air, microorganisms, human-made systems, it's just too much to tell. And you've barely left your home. Then there are all sorts of ecosystems and places on Earth, I bet most don't have to travel far to go to a place of natural beauty they've never been to. For reference, Jupiter seems to be about 600,000,000 km away from us. It's interesting and beautiful for sure, but also... a giant blob of gas. If we were a little more thankful for what we do have, that's also unlocking a great treasure.
Also, we don't value enough our imagination (and even computer games!) too I think. In a movie or computer game[2], you can make so it so the travel to Jupiter takes seconds (or minutes to hours, just to make it more exciting ;) ), and you get quite astounding views too in the comfort of your home. Telescopes and scientific missions do the same. Through fiction and fantasy, we can travel to places that don't even exist and have all sorts of exciting histories :)
If you think about it, life right here on Earth is amazingly beautiful really -- but we have to look with the right eye (mindset and wisdom) to see it at all...
That said, bring in the space movies :)
[1] Nothing at all wrong with a little romanticism I think, that's good. But we shouldn't lose sights of reality...
[2] I really wish computer games were more culturally valued, and not seen as a way to kill time, or an addictive past time. They're really our tool to travel to brand new worlds at our fingertips (of course, with great power comes great responsibility...), we should recognize that as our generation's great medium !
Let's assume we have advanced but still physically plausible technology. The universe is huge. The Solar system is huge. Getting anywhere takes forever! Months, to years (can be shorted with very large energy expense, but you only go faster with the square root of energy!).
Shielding from radiation requires large barriers. So you need to spend most time in a relatively small quarters guarded by large mass barriers (magnetic fields might help a little too). Everything about living in space will probably be a mix of boring, hard/confined and extremely costly.
This kind of yearning makes me remember something that Richard Feynman said. It's something like (paraphrasing) "We know almost everything about the universe, the nature of forces, even how life works; the forces that bind everything together are known to astounding, extraordinary precision -- pretty much all phenomena relevant at all to every day life. Yet when I meet someone who isn't a physicist, they will ask almost immediately "So what don't we know about physics? What unsolved problems are there?". There's so much we do know and they're not interested in that! And it's so fascinating!". (I think that deserves a name, like "Feynman syndrome", or something :P
Like the physics we already do know (and the mathematics as well) is astounding, fascinating, I think so is where we can go, and where we can observe. Like, the Earth (and its lifeforms!) is absolutely astounding. If you go a block around your house, with a keen eye, there are probably interesting enough things to spend a lifetime studying. A single species of insect, a species of tree, microscopic polen in the air, microorganisms, human-made systems, it's just too much to tell. And you've barely left your home. Then there are all sorts of ecosystems and places on Earth, I bet most don't have to travel far to go to a place of natural beauty they've never been to. For reference, Jupiter seems to be about 600,000,000 km away from us. It's interesting and beautiful for sure, but also... a giant blob of gas. If we were a little more thankful for what we do have, that's also unlocking a great treasure.
Also, we don't value enough our imagination (and even computer games!) too I think. In a movie or computer game[2], you can make so it so the travel to Jupiter takes seconds (or minutes to hours, just to make it more exciting ;) ), and you get quite astounding views too in the comfort of your home. Telescopes and scientific missions do the same. Through fiction and fantasy, we can travel to places that don't even exist and have all sorts of exciting histories :)
If you think about it, life right here on Earth is amazingly beautiful really -- but we have to look with the right eye (mindset and wisdom) to see it at all...
That said, bring in the space movies :)
[1] Nothing at all wrong with a little romanticism I think, that's good. But we shouldn't lose sights of reality...
[2] I really wish computer games were more culturally valued, and not seen as a way to kill time, or an addictive past time. They're really our tool to travel to brand new worlds at our fingertips (of course, with great power comes great responsibility...), we should recognize that as our generation's great medium !
It's also extremely useful to recall that most of the tropes of SciFi TV, cinema and books are there for visual, narrative, budgetary, and literary necessity. Star Trek utilises transporters and warp speed not because they're technically probably or scientifically valid ... but because spending days or millennia going from ship to surface or between stars in a galaxy is utterly nonviable for a television or film production Sets and locations are similarly frequently recycled or drawn from nearby opportunities (which is why The Entire Universe is now in British Columbia). Star Wars's light sabers and blasters are visually appealing but nonsensical physically. Even "realistic" films such as 2001: A Space Odyssey remove such elements as the absolutely gigantic heat radiators the Discovery would have needed if it were depicted in a technically-accurate manner.
Similar depictions occur in fiction, most of which are fairly shallowly-disguised Western, Journey, or Empire sagas relocated in space, though without any actual foundations on physics. Hard science fiction can sometimes make a few nods to reality, and often exists as a sort of "what if", exploring the potential consequences of some scientific or technological capability being realised, but again has very little basis in any known physics.
And I write this as someone who was caught hook, line, and sinker by the von Braun vision of spaceships to the planets, Asimov, Clarke, Heinlein, and others. As I've gotten older it's the psychological and social explorations which are more interesting: Le Guin, Stephenson (who tends to remain in near-Earth orbits), Bradbury, Butler, KSR, and the like.
Not that the fantasy isn't still attractive at times, and with the capabilities for visualising potential space-scapes and starscapes, the visual imagery really is stunning, as in 1RPM here.
(I'd watched before reading the description, and pretty much all the points Wernquist highlighted were ones I'd noted in the video itself.)
Similar depictions occur in fiction, most of which are fairly shallowly-disguised Western, Journey, or Empire sagas relocated in space, though without any actual foundations on physics. Hard science fiction can sometimes make a few nods to reality, and often exists as a sort of "what if", exploring the potential consequences of some scientific or technological capability being realised, but again has very little basis in any known physics.
And I write this as someone who was caught hook, line, and sinker by the von Braun vision of spaceships to the planets, Asimov, Clarke, Heinlein, and others. As I've gotten older it's the psychological and social explorations which are more interesting: Le Guin, Stephenson (who tends to remain in near-Earth orbits), Bradbury, Butler, KSR, and the like.
Not that the fantasy isn't still attractive at times, and with the capabilities for visualising potential space-scapes and starscapes, the visual imagery really is stunning, as in 1RPM here.
(I'd watched before reading the description, and pretty much all the points Wernquist highlighted were ones I'd noted in the video itself.)
> Star Trek utilises transporters ... because spending days or millennia going from ship to surface or between stars in a galaxy is utterly nonviable for ... television
Transporters specifically were "invented" due to budget constraints on the original series. The original plan was for the crew to use a shuttlecraft whenever they visited a planet, but that proved too costly-- In the absence of CGI, that would have to be done with practical effects, i.e. a model shuttle filmed landing on model terrain. The transporter shots, on the other hand, were really just a fancy cross-fade.
Transporters specifically were "invented" due to budget constraints on the original series. The original plan was for the crew to use a shuttlecraft whenever they visited a planet, but that proved too costly-- In the absence of CGI, that would have to be done with practical effects, i.e. a model shuttle filmed landing on model terrain. The transporter shots, on the other hand, were really just a fancy cross-fade.
Right, and that's part of what I was getting at.
Though you might also consider that landing from the ISS, in low-Earth orbit, takes at least hours presently. This Dragon X capsule landing initiated at 11:05 GMT on 3 September 2023, and was scheduled to splash down at 04:17 GMT on the 4th, over 17 hours later.
<https://www.space.com/spacex-crew-6-astronauts-depart-iss-we...>
Descent phase for the Soyuz is at least three hours.
Launch-to-dock takes 6 hours to 3 days: <https://starlust.org/how-long-does-it-take-to-get-to-the-iss...>
With transporters, script writers can bounce characters between locations in seconds.
Regarding the FX challenges: It's common to re-use stock or standard footage for such segments, which already occurs with many spaceflight sequences in Star Trek and related series. With the ability to swap in different backgrounds (using mattes or rear projection in the pre-CGI era) this gains more flexibility. Establishing shots are the equivalent for contemporary or historical terrestrially-based plots, programmes, series, etc.
Viewing television productions with an eye to scene, set, and location cost helps one realise why so many scenes are shot in low-rent locations: car parks, warehouses, docks, drainage canals, desert, etc. (Also typically proximate to major film studio locations as with Hollywood or elsewhere.)
Though you might also consider that landing from the ISS, in low-Earth orbit, takes at least hours presently. This Dragon X capsule landing initiated at 11:05 GMT on 3 September 2023, and was scheduled to splash down at 04:17 GMT on the 4th, over 17 hours later.
<https://www.space.com/spacex-crew-6-astronauts-depart-iss-we...>
Descent phase for the Soyuz is at least three hours.
Launch-to-dock takes 6 hours to 3 days: <https://starlust.org/how-long-does-it-take-to-get-to-the-iss...>
With transporters, script writers can bounce characters between locations in seconds.
Regarding the FX challenges: It's common to re-use stock or standard footage for such segments, which already occurs with many spaceflight sequences in Star Trek and related series. With the ability to swap in different backgrounds (using mattes or rear projection in the pre-CGI era) this gains more flexibility. Establishing shots are the equivalent for contemporary or historical terrestrially-based plots, programmes, series, etc.
Viewing television productions with an eye to scene, set, and location cost helps one realise why so many scenes are shot in low-rent locations: car parks, warehouses, docks, drainage canals, desert, etc. (Also typically proximate to major film studio locations as with Hollywood or elsewhere.)
And you can now have new horrible transporter accidents without any cost at all. Just say "What we got back on this side wasn't alive for very long, commander".
A lot of Trek episodes happen because Starfleet engineering is criminally bad.
After all, who’d design a fuel tank that explodes when it loses power and “antimatter containment” fails.
After all, who’d design a fuel tank that explodes when it loses power and “antimatter containment” fails.
IIRC it was logistics as well - the shuttle prop was taking a lot longer than expected.
I'm quite aware of the difficulties of it. As much as anyone around here, I think. I've spent time studying it from the inside as well as as an outsider.
That's part of the sadness. But it is possible to spread throughout the solar system, and so it's a matter of scale after that.
At one time, nobody could leave the shoreline or they'd be lost forever. We have invented our way out of most of it.
Now, I enjoy thinking about how _different_ it would be from any journey we've taken. Something more like frozen embryos and robotic caregivers than a ship full of brave men. I mean, what would they eat? But it is not at all impossible, just unfathomable to us.
That's part of the sadness. But it is possible to spread throughout the solar system, and so it's a matter of scale after that.
At one time, nobody could leave the shoreline or they'd be lost forever. We have invented our way out of most of it.
Now, I enjoy thinking about how _different_ it would be from any journey we've taken. Something more like frozen embryos and robotic caregivers than a ship full of brave men. I mean, what would they eat? But it is not at all impossible, just unfathomable to us.
> That's part of the sadness. But it is possible to spread throughout the solar system, and so it's a matter of scale after that.
Not really. In this solar system, the off-Earth real estate is pretty bad. Worse than almost anywhere on Earth. Most of Canada and Alaska are vacant, after all, and those areas have air and water. Now that it looks like human population is peaking, there's not much pressure to inhabit low-value real estate.
Space travel belongs to machines. Small ones. Read Ashlee Vance's new book, "When the Heavens Went on Sale". All the action now is in small satellites and small to medium sized rockets. If and when Space-X gets its Starship working, it may turn out to be a white elephant, like the Space Shuttle. There just aren't that many big payloads worth launching. About once a year, somebody buys a Falcon Heavy launch, and once or twice a year. China launches a Long March 5.
Not really. In this solar system, the off-Earth real estate is pretty bad. Worse than almost anywhere on Earth. Most of Canada and Alaska are vacant, after all, and those areas have air and water. Now that it looks like human population is peaking, there's not much pressure to inhabit low-value real estate.
Space travel belongs to machines. Small ones. Read Ashlee Vance's new book, "When the Heavens Went on Sale". All the action now is in small satellites and small to medium sized rockets. If and when Space-X gets its Starship working, it may turn out to be a white elephant, like the Space Shuttle. There just aren't that many big payloads worth launching. About once a year, somebody buys a Falcon Heavy launch, and once or twice a year. China launches a Long March 5.
SpaceX is about to launch about 1600 tons to space this year, massively more than has been the global combined tonnage in the years before. And their launch slots are selling like hotcakes (which is also due to others turning out to be pretty incompetent in producing any rocket comparable to Falcon 9 in a decade, but thats a different story).
So I think the demand is there & finally the costs are low enough to enable many missions that we just can't afford before (like all those lunar landers showing up recently) and I don't think this trend will slow down any time soon, thankfully.
So I think the demand is there & finally the costs are low enough to enable many missions that we just can't afford before (like all those lunar landers showing up recently) and I don't think this trend will slow down any time soon, thankfully.
I find it odd we haven’t embraced the modular spaceship and EOR approach.
Think of a Falcon 9 second stage but instead of payload, it had more tank, more fuel, a docking ring and a set of RCS thrusters. It gets to orbit, finds its ”passenger”, docks to it and pushes it into whatever trajectory it wants to go.
Add a truss with multiple docking rings to your payload and you can add multiple tugs to give a larger payload a bigger kick.
Even packing a few kick stages on top of F9s or F9 heavies would enable some interesting missions - as both trajectory can be higher energy and payload doesn’t need to be trimmed to the minimum viable mass.
Think of a Falcon 9 second stage but instead of payload, it had more tank, more fuel, a docking ring and a set of RCS thrusters. It gets to orbit, finds its ”passenger”, docks to it and pushes it into whatever trajectory it wants to go.
Add a truss with multiple docking rings to your payload and you can add multiple tugs to give a larger payload a bigger kick.
Even packing a few kick stages on top of F9s or F9 heavies would enable some interesting missions - as both trajectory can be higher energy and payload doesn’t need to be trimmed to the minimum viable mass.
Delta-V is more constrained by available fuel than number of tugs. An in-orbit refueled SpaceX Starship (or a fleet of them) will likely handle all the requirements we are able to manufacture for, in the near future.
[deleted]
> there are probably interesting enough things to spend a lifetime studying.
This is something that drives me nuts about wannabe photographers. They all immediately travel off to "exotic" locations to take pictures of "exotic" people and things.
Your house and neighborhood is plenty exotic enough for a lifetime's work, if you have the eye.
Your first three paragraphs are the answer to the so-called Fermi Paradox.
If your species has adapted to spending tens of thousands of years in tiny craft isolated by vast distances from anything else, leaving that environment would be extremely risky and difficult.
This is something that drives me nuts about wannabe photographers. They all immediately travel off to "exotic" locations to take pictures of "exotic" people and things.
Your house and neighborhood is plenty exotic enough for a lifetime's work, if you have the eye.
Your first three paragraphs are the answer to the so-called Fermi Paradox.
If your species has adapted to spending tens of thousands of years in tiny craft isolated by vast distances from anything else, leaving that environment would be extremely risky and difficult.
To see a World in a Grain of Sand
And a Heaven in a Wild Flower
Hold Infinity in the palm of your hand
And Eternity in an hour
<https://www.poetryfoundation.org/poems/43650/auguries-of-inn...>
Even if humanity decides to live in the metaverse or something instead of spreading out further (which I doubt), someone somewhere is going to decide to make a Von Neumann probe eventually.
IMO the only solutions to the paradox are either that intelligent life is really, really rare or civilizations wipe themselves out in some kind of filtering event.
IMO the only solutions to the paradox are either that intelligent life is really, really rare or civilizations wipe themselves out in some kind of filtering event.
Not to mention proper virtual worlds with all the best effects, depth and fidelity and realism still need to run on something. In essence you are running an utopia in emulation, possibly requiring more real world resources to essentially simulate another world on top of yours.
So the people might live in a disconnected digital paradise, but their automated servants might cross the void at relativistic speeds to harvest any and all matter and energy not bolted down, to upgrade the paradise of their masters.
So the people might live in a disconnected digital paradise, but their automated servants might cross the void at relativistic speeds to harvest any and all matter and energy not bolted down, to upgrade the paradise of their masters.
It is a little sad to think that we may have only one shot to the stars. The way we have squandered our resources makes it very difficult to bootstrap again in the future, case we choose the wrong way now. The next few years are going to be interesting indeed [remember that 'may you live interesting times' is a curse].
Maybe space is just so big that, even if there’s plenty of intelligent life inside our light cone, it’s still all far enough away that we can’t detect it (yet).
I think it is just a matter of time till we detect some large enough megascale engineering projects, even with current detection technology.
Or even find out that some weird natural phenomenons might be actually results of such engineering endeavors.
Or even find out that some weird natural phenomenons might be actually results of such engineering endeavors.
I'm not sure about the square root of energy, are you sure about that ? It kinda reminds me rather of atmospheric flight where drag (and thus energy expediture) rises by similar non-linear amount.
As for shielding - there are ways around that. To shield from your own reactor you can use shadow shields & fit you ship quite comfortably into the protected cone it provides. If you are afraid of solar radiation, you can use that as well, just orient your ship accordingly when a solar flare is detected that could har you.
For fixed stations you either are on some body & have more or less unlimited amounts of "dirt" for shielding or for an orbital installation you should be able to accumulate enough material over time & it should not really matter as such stations would likely rarely change their orbit, if ever.
And lastly, you might be able to improve humans over time to better handle the space environment via new medical practices, new drugs or even various physical enhancements.
Modern people live in many places where their predecessors would not survive (or at least not with any reasonable quality of life) and this seems like another such challenge & stepping stone for humans.
As for shielding - there are ways around that. To shield from your own reactor you can use shadow shields & fit you ship quite comfortably into the protected cone it provides. If you are afraid of solar radiation, you can use that as well, just orient your ship accordingly when a solar flare is detected that could har you.
For fixed stations you either are on some body & have more or less unlimited amounts of "dirt" for shielding or for an orbital installation you should be able to accumulate enough material over time & it should not really matter as such stations would likely rarely change their orbit, if ever.
And lastly, you might be able to improve humans over time to better handle the space environment via new medical practices, new drugs or even various physical enhancements.
Modern people live in many places where their predecessors would not survive (or at least not with any reasonable quality of life) and this seems like another such challenge & stepping stone for humans.
> Shielding from radiation requires large barriers. So you need to spend most time in a relatively small quarters guarded by large mass barriers
The amount of shielding needed is squared every time you increase the amount of living space by the third power. All that means is that whenever people manage to live on space, they will live on something huge, not a station like the one on the movie. The most stupid way to do it is by creating small quarters on small stations.
Also, that's when near a star. If you are moving very fast away from one, your need for shielding will increase linearly every time you increase the living space by the third power. Making smaller ships even less viable, but large ones with plenty of space.
The amount of shielding needed is squared every time you increase the amount of living space by the third power. All that means is that whenever people manage to live on space, they will live on something huge, not a station like the one on the movie. The most stupid way to do it is by creating small quarters on small stations.
Also, that's when near a star. If you are moving very fast away from one, your need for shielding will increase linearly every time you increase the living space by the third power. Making smaller ships even less viable, but large ones with plenty of space.
I think video games will also emerge as critical psychological support when we’re far away in cramped, boring, costly quarters.
Spend 8 hours slowly digging an access tunnel on Mars, 8 hours in the fully immersive fantasy world of Unicornia as a level 85 troll-mage, 8 hours sleeping. Rinse, repeat.
Without the mental escape, there would be sadism and brutality.
Spend 8 hours slowly digging an access tunnel on Mars, 8 hours in the fully immersive fantasy world of Unicornia as a level 85 troll-mage, 8 hours sleeping. Rinse, repeat.
Without the mental escape, there would be sadism and brutality.
Taking ships over vast distances to new worlds, meeting alien cultures, imperial conquests. That was the age of sail. It will never happen again like that.
May I say your writing style is very beautiful and easy to read!
Extra points for advocating for playing/exploring video games!
Extra points for advocating for playing/exploring video games!
From his showreel, it seems Erik also created the animation of the final moments of the Cassini mission to Saturn: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xrGAQCq9BMU
Showreel: https://erikwernquist.com/showreel
Showreel: https://erikwernquist.com/showreel
Yes, here's the whole short: https://erikwernquist.com/cassinis-grand-finale
I have to say I prefer this over Crazy Frog (which was also created by Erik Wernquist).
Wow that's crazy
https://web.archive.org/web/20120217105311/http://www.hitqua...
This is actually a really interesting story by itself. Thanks for sharing.
What the hell.
Which is now almost 20 years old to the day (posted originally on Oct 15th 2003)
I'm not sure if it's true or not, but one of the plot points in The Expanse series is how necessary artificial gravity it is for human recovery.
Without giving too much away, it assumes that humans need gravity to heal properly, otherwise things like bruises won't heal since you can't drain the fluids without gravity.
Without giving too much away, it assumes that humans need gravity to heal properly, otherwise things like bruises won't heal since you can't drain the fluids without gravity.
Yes, this is a fascinating topic; because although we know that 0.0G as in the International Space Station is unhealthy in many ways that 1.0G on Earth is not (1), the in-betweens are relatively unknown.
e.g. How much of the health benefits of 1G do you get at 0.9 G? at 0.5G or 0.1G? Where's the inflection point?
Would you still get the benefit if you rest in full gravity for 8 hours, and then move out of the ring section of a space station for the rest of the day? Would 1 hour per day in gravity do it?
How would people's health be impacted by a long-term stay on the Moon (at 0.17G ) or Mars (0.38G) ?
This is not well understood, and hard to study without more experimental data. Which would have to be gathered Off Earth.
And we might need to know sooner or later.
On the Moon you could do the Experiment on site, and bring people back on relatively short notice if it does not go well. But for Mars, if it doesn't work out there it's a long haul back, most of it at 0.0G.
There have been proposals to build small spin rings in orbit to do the experiments on Astronauts, but these plans have not happened yet. (2)
1) https://davidson.weizmann.ac.il/en/online/sciencepanorama/da...
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/11536970/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Effect_of_spaceflight_on_the_h...
2) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nautilus-X
e.g. How much of the health benefits of 1G do you get at 0.9 G? at 0.5G or 0.1G? Where's the inflection point?
Would you still get the benefit if you rest in full gravity for 8 hours, and then move out of the ring section of a space station for the rest of the day? Would 1 hour per day in gravity do it?
How would people's health be impacted by a long-term stay on the Moon (at 0.17G ) or Mars (0.38G) ?
This is not well understood, and hard to study without more experimental data. Which would have to be gathered Off Earth.
And we might need to know sooner or later.
On the Moon you could do the Experiment on site, and bring people back on relatively short notice if it does not go well. But for Mars, if it doesn't work out there it's a long haul back, most of it at 0.0G.
There have been proposals to build small spin rings in orbit to do the experiments on Astronauts, but these plans have not happened yet. (2)
1) https://davidson.weizmann.ac.il/en/online/sciencepanorama/da...
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/11536970/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Effect_of_spaceflight_on_the_h...
2) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nautilus-X
I also would be curious about effects of time spent at 1.1G, 1.5G, or 2G, including for those who grow up in it.
> Would you still get the benefit if you rest in full gravity for 8 hours, and then move out of the ring section of a space station for the rest of the day? Would 1 hour per day in gravity do it?
Again, curious if this is the case, would spending less time >1G but <2G be equivalent to spending larger amounts of time at 1G?
> Would you still get the benefit if you rest in full gravity for 8 hours, and then move out of the ring section of a space station for the rest of the day? Would 1 hour per day in gravity do it?
Again, curious if this is the case, would spending less time >1G but <2G be equivalent to spending larger amounts of time at 1G?
At least thats something you can test on Earth using existing technology. IIRC the Soviets built centrifuges big enough to live in & did some longer term experiments, so there might already be some data available for this.
Sadly you can't test alternating between 1G, and 0G daily, on Earth.
Maybe that will be the answer. Or maybe the repeatedly changing gravity will really mess people up.
Maybe that will be the answer. Or maybe the repeatedly changing gravity will really mess people up.
> would spending less time >1G but <2G be equivalent to spending larger amounts of time at 1G?
The experiments need to be done, but my wild uninformed guess is:
Human health is not math, the numbers won't stack up like "1.5G times 2 hours = 3 G-hours"
Humans have evolved under 1.0G, all the way back the the ancestor who crawled up out of the sea around 400 million years ago. That's a long time with that as an environmental constant. Deviation from that environment in either direction, up or down, will have negative effects on the body. Some easy to predict, some less so.
The experiments need to be done, but my wild uninformed guess is:
Human health is not math, the numbers won't stack up like "1.5G times 2 hours = 3 G-hours"
Humans have evolved under 1.0G, all the way back the the ancestor who crawled up out of the sea around 400 million years ago. That's a long time with that as an environmental constant. Deviation from that environment in either direction, up or down, will have negative effects on the body. Some easy to predict, some less so.
It's a huge shame the ISS's Centrifuge Accomodations Module never materialized. Obviously too small for humans, but would've still made it possible to study at least some animals between 0->1G
Couldn’t we add a centrifuge inside a large inflatable? What could be the final size of the inflatable that could be fitted atop a cargo SLS to LEO or a Starship?
One of the very good reasons not to do it is vibration and oscillation that would ruin some microgravity experiments.
One of the very good reasons not to do it is vibration and oscillation that would ruin some microgravity experiments.
Yes, we could. Or rather, NASA could. But it hasn't a priority yet.
Before going to Mars, the experiments will have to be done.
Another way to try it out is: if people are healthy on the Moon's gravity for a long term, then Mars gravity is likely healthy too.
So this says that in reality, going to Mars is not close, as neither of these experiments are immanent.
Before going to Mars, the experiments will have to be done.
Another way to try it out is: if people are healthy on the Moon's gravity for a long term, then Mars gravity is likely healthy too.
So this says that in reality, going to Mars is not close, as neither of these experiments are immanent.
https://space.stackexchange.com/questions/36411/healing-of-b...
Seems like it's true!
Seems like it's true!
It's a minor plot point in the Hyperion series by Dan Simmons as well. The "ousters" are a space-adapted race of humans who live most of their lives in zero-G, but they still need gravity to give birth.
It's a great series, it's not as "hard" sci-fi, but the imagery is absolutely incredible.
It's a great series, it's not as "hard" sci-fi, but the imagery is absolutely incredible.
I've never read a series that I loved so much and then hated so much. Some of the books and the world-building are just awe-inspiring.
Wait, why did you hate it at the end? I thought it was great the whole way through.
Does that imply that standing up helps healing?
Id go insane with my environment pulsating at 0.016 Hz. It'd be like having a 60 second song on repeat, but visual. 60 s is short enough that I still have my short term memory of what was one rev before, but not fast enough to blur it away.
It's a hunch, but Ithink, as humans, we don't do well with frequencies from 0.01 to 100Hz [1]. Most (all?) of human cognition happens there, and to me it feels like a recipe for a a cognitive resonance.
[1] I find it cool that the range is centered about 1 s - a fraction of time we call "a moment" that, to me, best anchors the concept of "present".
It's a hunch, but Ithink, as humans, we don't do well with frequencies from 0.01 to 100Hz [1]. Most (all?) of human cognition happens there, and to me it feels like a recipe for a a cognitive resonance.
[1] I find it cool that the range is centered about 1 s - a fraction of time we call "a moment" that, to me, best anchors the concept of "present".
Really beautiful.
Why 0.5G and not 1G though? Aside from the narration that decision doesn't seem to have any impact on the video. I would expect that difference to have a noticeable effect on things like the posture of the plants, the design of the pool, the flight of the butterflies, the posture and gait of the man. Ever accidentally bump a drinking glass, but not enough to knock it over? A wine glass sitting statically on a table will look pretty much the same at 0.5G, but half the downward force means you're probably much more likely to accidentally knock it over. So would we really use the same sort of glasses on a space station like this?
Aside from one line about "walk, don't run, don't jump", all of this would be arguably more realistic/accurate if they just called it 1.0G, so I find that decision to be curious.
Why 0.5G and not 1G though? Aside from the narration that decision doesn't seem to have any impact on the video. I would expect that difference to have a noticeable effect on things like the posture of the plants, the design of the pool, the flight of the butterflies, the posture and gait of the man. Ever accidentally bump a drinking glass, but not enough to knock it over? A wine glass sitting statically on a table will look pretty much the same at 0.5G, but half the downward force means you're probably much more likely to accidentally knock it over. So would we really use the same sort of glasses on a space station like this?
Aside from one line about "walk, don't run, don't jump", all of this would be arguably more realistic/accurate if they just called it 1.0G, so I find that decision to be curious.
Regarding the dimensions, I wanted to make the structure as large as possible, while still getting a clear visual sense of the curvature in the interiors. That is how I ended up with the 450-meter radius and 1 RPM spin rate.
From TFA, which consists (apart from the video) of 8 short paragraphs in its entirety.
From TFA, which consists (apart from the video) of 8 short paragraphs in its entirety.
Spinning this structure for 1G would only make the problems called out by the author worse. Much worse:
> I believe that the perpetually spinning views would be extremely nauseating for most humans, even for short visits. Even worse, I suspect - when it comes to the comfort of the experience - would be the constantly moving light and shadows from the sun.
> I believe that the perpetually spinning views would be extremely nauseating for most humans, even for short visits. Even worse, I suspect - when it comes to the comfort of the experience - would be the constantly moving light and shadows from the sun.
It was an artistic choice, in order to be able to have large open windows that aren't too disorienting, in a habitat small enough that you can see clear curvature in every room, and still call the project "One Revolution Per Minute". If he had called it "One Point Four Revolutions Per Minute", it could have been 1g and still had the right curvature that he wanted, but then the lights moving past the windows would be a fair bit harder to handle.
In general, the major point of artistic license in the project is the windows, which the author acknowledges. A realistic (and still extremely exciting and inspiring) rotating space habitat this size would rotate at 1.4rpm to achieve 1g, and would not have transparent glass windows for safety and nausea reasons (replace them with screens that show a non-rotating view of the outside for a similar effect without the safety and nausea cost).
It's also worth noting that the habitat could be made bigger, to have 1rpm cause 1g. It would require a habitat with a radius of 890m, so a total circumference of 5.6km, still well within the tensile strength of steel for suspension under 1g (I personally wouldn't trust a rotating space habitat to be made out of composites or similar materials until we have a much, much better understanding of composite failure modes and a reliable way of testing/repairing such structures - steel is best because we know how to use it, what its limits are, and because it has fatigue resistance without being absurdly expensive like titanium). A habitat like that would not have the rooms visibly curve as much as they do in this video, though.
In general, the major point of artistic license in the project is the windows, which the author acknowledges. A realistic (and still extremely exciting and inspiring) rotating space habitat this size would rotate at 1.4rpm to achieve 1g, and would not have transparent glass windows for safety and nausea reasons (replace them with screens that show a non-rotating view of the outside for a similar effect without the safety and nausea cost).
It's also worth noting that the habitat could be made bigger, to have 1rpm cause 1g. It would require a habitat with a radius of 890m, so a total circumference of 5.6km, still well within the tensile strength of steel for suspension under 1g (I personally wouldn't trust a rotating space habitat to be made out of composites or similar materials until we have a much, much better understanding of composite failure modes and a reliable way of testing/repairing such structures - steel is best because we know how to use it, what its limits are, and because it has fatigue resistance without being absurdly expensive like titanium). A habitat like that would not have the rooms visibly curve as much as they do in this video, though.
> replace them with screens that show a non-rotating view of the outside for a similar effect without the safety and nausea cost
What’s the point of travelling without windows?
What’s the point of travelling without windows?
Thats kinda the default when traveling underwater or in space - most of the time there is nothing interesting visible, yet the outside medium can easily kill you and windows help with that.
You can have some observation sections, but regular windows everywhere don't make sense in this case.
You can have some observation sections, but regular windows everywhere don't make sense in this case.
> most of the time there is nothing interesting visible
The stars, the planets... At least on spaceships.
As for submarines, I have to agree. Windows are mostly pointless.
The stars, the planets... At least on spaceships.
As for submarines, I have to agree. Windows are mostly pointless.
Sure, but the stars will always be the same (baring some very drastic propulsion improvements) & even during regular inter-planetary transits your origin planet will become a star quite quickly as you get on your way & you will see the same starts +1 for the next months/years the trip takes until just before you arrive, when one of the stars suddenly turns in a the world that is your destination.
Still worth it. I've watched the skies of Earth since I was a kid and the sense of wonder never went away.
Off the top of my head, a list of reasons why humans should go to space that are not obviated by a lack of floor to ceiling windows throughout a ship or habitat (only the window specific ones are a direct response to you, this is otherwise just a direct answer to "Why space?" as a general question):
- to go where no one has gone before and see what no one else has seen
- to watch the development of a storm cell on Jupiter in real time
- because screens relaying a real time feed aren't really "less real" than windows which inherently have to filter out various wavelengths for basic safety
- because travelling with a ship covered in windows in space is suicidal, which in my opinion tends to dull the point of anything
- because studying the effects of various levels of artificial gravity on humans has inherent scientific value
- because cupolas like those on the ISS are easy enough to make safe without needing to fatally compromise the safety of your habitat with windows everywhere
- because real time control and maintenance of scientific equipment significantly improves the scientific productivity you can achieve with that equipment, and enables new experiments
- because humanity and intelligent life is not meant to occupy 0.0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000003% of the universe forever, and our cradle being special and worth preserving doesn't mean we should never leave the cradle
- because extant human society already wastes the talents of billions of current and future people confined by poverty into being unable to fulfill their potential, and confining humanity to an infinitesimally small portion of the universe forever is bad for similar reasons
- because even intelligent ocean dwellers could not have predicted fire when considering the leap to landborne life, and likewise we can't really know what will become possible once we get to space
- because a gamma ray burst that happened 100,000 years ago could be travelling to Earth right now, ready to largely wipe out life once it arrives
- because humans are good, and more humans that have better lives is preferable to fewer with worse lives
- because there are so many resources in space that development of them could render some useful and valuable materials as cheap as water, or lead to entirely new use cases for previously scarce materials
- because children and adults alike have always looked up at the stars and dreamed of going there, and crushing dreams of hope is cynical and selfish
- because it tests and focuses our science and industry on an endeavour that leads to myriad non-space economic and cultural benefits, without the downsides of trying to kill each other in ever more horrific ways while mobilising for wars
- because the hopelessness and cynicism felt by many globally that leads to the rejection of space is an injury inflicted upon us by conditions we have to fight to overcome, not a natural state we should give in to
- because Musk & Bezos already control way too much of society, and the idea that we should abandon 99.99999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999997% of the universe to them without even struggling for it is cowardly
- because wanting to explore and share and create and leave wonder for our children is good
- because I am saddened thinking of the past 50 years of stagnation in achieving truly great human endeavours in space, and I wonder why the people who led in those times failed so badly and whether the previous generations let them get away with it or simply found themselves unable to do anything. I don't want my grandchildren to wonder that about my generation.
- because humans going to space on a large scale is realistic and achievable with appropriate safety precautions and scientific/industrial advances, which we can choose to make
- because I have hope for the future and I'm not going to give that up
- to go where no one has gone before and see what no one else has seen
- to watch the development of a storm cell on Jupiter in real time
- because screens relaying a real time feed aren't really "less real" than windows which inherently have to filter out various wavelengths for basic safety
- because travelling with a ship covered in windows in space is suicidal, which in my opinion tends to dull the point of anything
- because studying the effects of various levels of artificial gravity on humans has inherent scientific value
- because cupolas like those on the ISS are easy enough to make safe without needing to fatally compromise the safety of your habitat with windows everywhere
- because real time control and maintenance of scientific equipment significantly improves the scientific productivity you can achieve with that equipment, and enables new experiments
- because humanity and intelligent life is not meant to occupy 0.0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000003% of the universe forever, and our cradle being special and worth preserving doesn't mean we should never leave the cradle
- because extant human society already wastes the talents of billions of current and future people confined by poverty into being unable to fulfill their potential, and confining humanity to an infinitesimally small portion of the universe forever is bad for similar reasons
- because even intelligent ocean dwellers could not have predicted fire when considering the leap to landborne life, and likewise we can't really know what will become possible once we get to space
- because a gamma ray burst that happened 100,000 years ago could be travelling to Earth right now, ready to largely wipe out life once it arrives
- because humans are good, and more humans that have better lives is preferable to fewer with worse lives
- because there are so many resources in space that development of them could render some useful and valuable materials as cheap as water, or lead to entirely new use cases for previously scarce materials
- because children and adults alike have always looked up at the stars and dreamed of going there, and crushing dreams of hope is cynical and selfish
- because it tests and focuses our science and industry on an endeavour that leads to myriad non-space economic and cultural benefits, without the downsides of trying to kill each other in ever more horrific ways while mobilising for wars
- because the hopelessness and cynicism felt by many globally that leads to the rejection of space is an injury inflicted upon us by conditions we have to fight to overcome, not a natural state we should give in to
- because Musk & Bezos already control way too much of society, and the idea that we should abandon 99.99999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999997% of the universe to them without even struggling for it is cowardly
- because wanting to explore and share and create and leave wonder for our children is good
- because I am saddened thinking of the past 50 years of stagnation in achieving truly great human endeavours in space, and I wonder why the people who led in those times failed so badly and whether the previous generations let them get away with it or simply found themselves unable to do anything. I don't want my grandchildren to wonder that about my generation.
- because humans going to space on a large scale is realistic and achievable with appropriate safety precautions and scientific/industrial advances, which we can choose to make
- because I have hope for the future and I'm not going to give that up
Still, no screen will ever be as good as a window. At least for visible wavelengths at human-perceptible intensities. It's fundamental - you are there - the photons that bounced off the clouds below are the ones hitting your retinas.
I know that my eyes would perceive some spectacular things we see in the sky as dull, because they aren't as sensible as my telescope's camera, and aren't able to concentrate that much light on my retina as the telescope can.
And, yet, one can sit back in a darkened observation deck and wonder at the Milky Way rotating above.
If someone is too concerned about motion sickness, then build a bigger ring that rotates slowly.
I know that my eyes would perceive some spectacular things we see in the sky as dull, because they aren't as sensible as my telescope's camera, and aren't able to concentrate that much light on my retina as the telescope can.
And, yet, one can sit back in a darkened observation deck and wonder at the Milky Way rotating above.
If someone is too concerned about motion sickness, then build a bigger ring that rotates slowly.
Perfect summary, thanks a lot! :)
They wanted it to be 450m wide so that the curvature would be clearly visible on camera, and then Two Revolutions per Minute is arguably a worse title than with One ;).
Actually it would have been sqrt(2) revolutions per minute :)
Indeed, the force is linear respective to the radius, but quadratic respective to the rotation speed. Thanks for the correction.
> Why 0.5G and not 1G though
Then the ring would either have to be larger or faster. Both are harder to build.
Then the ring would either have to be larger or faster. Both are harder to build.
NB: A centrifugal artificial-gravity environment need not be a ring. It could be a tethered object spinning around a centre of mass, consisting either of two opposed habitable pods or a single pod and a counterweight.
A sufficiently large pod would have an arc-of-circle structure, and multiple independent pods might be arranged in a spoke-like pattern.
Given tensile strengths of various cables, this should be generally attainable. Dynamic effects within a tensile-cable structure could however be problematic: shimmies, twists, or other movements, particularly if they are somehow amplified with time.
A sufficiently large pod would have an arc-of-circle structure, and multiple independent pods might be arranged in a spoke-like pattern.
Given tensile strengths of various cables, this should be generally attainable. Dynamic effects within a tensile-cable structure could however be problematic: shimmies, twists, or other movements, particularly if they are somehow amplified with time.
> Both are harder to build.
Certainly harder for NASA to build in space, but not any harder for this author to build in a computer :-D
Good point though:
> Regarding the dimensions, I wanted to make the structure as large as possible, while still getting a clear visual sense of the curvature in the interiors. That is how I ended up with the 450-meter radius and 1 RPM spin rate.
So it seems like he wanted to put specific constraints on the size/geometry and worked backwards from there.
Certainly harder for NASA to build in space, but not any harder for this author to build in a computer :-D
Good point though:
> Regarding the dimensions, I wanted to make the structure as large as possible, while still getting a clear visual sense of the curvature in the interiors. That is how I ended up with the 450-meter radius and 1 RPM spin rate.
So it seems like he wanted to put specific constraints on the size/geometry and worked backwards from there.
Right, a part of the film's design was "It should curve enough to look cool".
At first I found myself questioning the speed of the rotation, it seemed faster than claimed - 1rpm is not a lot?
Then I did the math: A quarter turn is a right angle, floor becomes wall. A quarter minute is every 15 seconds. That's about what's happening in the video. And it's quite disconcerting to watch continuously. I would not want to see faster rotation.
So the video is chosen for speed of motion and size of ring, and how they look. 1 G would either be faster motion or less curve, and it seems that the author didn't want those, for valid aesthetic reasons.
At first I found myself questioning the speed of the rotation, it seemed faster than claimed - 1rpm is not a lot?
Then I did the math: A quarter turn is a right angle, floor becomes wall. A quarter minute is every 15 seconds. That's about what's happening in the video. And it's quite disconcerting to watch continuously. I would not want to see faster rotation.
So the video is chosen for speed of motion and size of ring, and how they look. 1 G would either be faster motion or less curve, and it seems that the author didn't want those, for valid aesthetic reasons.
However, you could get ~1G by going to ~1.4 RMP or increasing the radius to ~900m (or finding some sweet spot in between), which doesn't seem like it would greatly impact the "vibe" he's trying to create.
Stronger/heavier materials needed for higher G, right ?
All that added inertia could also make maneuvers & burns harder.
All that added inertia could also make maneuvers & burns harder.
Then the question is, why not smaller. Actually, why 0.5G is chosen as optimal.
Kind middle between Moon (1/6) and Mars (1/3)?
I agree, and disappointed, that we don't really know how different gravity levels affect human body. We could make experiments of that kind on a space station - free-flying if needed - but chose not to up to now. We'll have to wait for something like a private station to test that.
Maybe Moon is quite enough. Maybe Mars is not enough. We don't really know, and we'd better find out.
Maybe Moon is quite enough. Maybe Mars is not enough. We don't really know, and we'd better find out.
It seems to be a vacation ship. Who would go to one in space only to feel the same gravity as down here?
If the outer ring creates 1G then wouldn't the inner ring have to be lower? Since at the center, gravity will be zero.
Acceleration of a point on a disc is as velocity squared, divided by radius. Since velocity of a point on a (rigid) disc is proportional to the radius, this simplifies to acceleration being proportional to the radius. Reduce the radius by half, and the acceleration reduces by half. And, at the center, acceleration is zero. (All this, of course, is assuming the angular rotation rate is constant.)
> half the downward force means you're probably much more likely to accidentally knock it over.
Yes, but it would also be significantly easier to catch before it hits the floor, right?
Yes, but it would also be significantly easier to catch before it hits the floor, right?
Two things that came to mind:
1. Would the Coriolis force tend to set up a big overturning cell in that swimming pool? i.e. there would be circulation along the top, down one end, back along the bottom, and up the other side?
2. Is this some kind of suicide cruise? They just seem to head out into interstellar space at the end. The delta-V to return to Earth would be incredible. And no more gravity assists once you're past the major planets.
1. Would the Coriolis force tend to set up a big overturning cell in that swimming pool? i.e. there would be circulation along the top, down one end, back along the bottom, and up the other side?
2. Is this some kind of suicide cruise? They just seem to head out into interstellar space at the end. The delta-V to return to Earth would be incredible. And no more gravity assists once you're past the major planets.
There would be some amount of vertical circulation due to Coriolis with the pool running parallel to the spinward-antispinward axis, yes. You could figure out exactly how much because he gives the dimensions of the ship, rotation speed, and we can estimate the size of the pool, but that would be beyond my meagre mathematical abilities.
Well, if they could launch and assemble all that ship & luxury, they presumably have the drive technology to match.
That second ship that docs might very well be something like antimatter propulsion tug or even something wilder like nuclear salt water rocket. Probably nothing nuclear/electric as no serious radiators for all the waste heat such a system would generate can be seen.
That second ship that docs might very well be something like antimatter propulsion tug or even something wilder like nuclear salt water rocket. Probably nothing nuclear/electric as no serious radiators for all the waste heat such a system would generate can be seen.
By symmetry, you wouldn't expect circulation in a pool oriented perpendicular to the station's rotation. The Coriolis effect happens in the northern hemisphere and the southern hemisphere, but not along the equator.
No horizontal circulation, sure, but the Coriolis effect can still cause vertical circulation.
Check out these panels from one of my favorite web-comics (they do their research):
https://www.schlockmercenary.com/2013-09-15
https://www.schlockmercenary.com/2013-09-16
Check out these panels from one of my favorite web-comics (they do their research):
https://www.schlockmercenary.com/2013-09-15
https://www.schlockmercenary.com/2013-09-16
The view gives me nausea; I don't want windows! I want my spacecraft to have thick skin and a Whipple shield!
Erik has a ton of excellent work! I remember stumbling across his Wanderers video several years ago.
https://erikwernquist.com/wanderers
https://erikwernquist.com/wanderers
This is gorgeous, but I wanted the cadence of the cuts to be just a little bit slower. Maybe this was intentional in order to create unease/tension, but I always felt like I was just a couple seconds away from being done looking at whatever I was looking at when they switched scenes.
That's been the style in video dating to at least MTV (back when it, you know, showed music videos).
The style apparently has a name, Post-classical editing:
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post-classical_editing>
I'm ... not particularly a fan myself and often slow videos considerably to savour the detail.
The style apparently has a name, Post-classical editing:
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post-classical_editing>
I'm ... not particularly a fan myself and often slow videos considerably to savour the detail.
What caught my eye is that this thing is pretty darn committed to remaining in rotation. Imagine needing to stop it to repair an axle bearing, with the trees, soil and water floating.
Commentary by Karl Schroeder:
> Beautifully rendered video of a wheel-shaped space habitat with artificial gravity. This shows viscerally what I pointed out in my Substack posts on the Single-Family Space Colony: that windows are a bad idea in rotating environments
https://mastodon.social/@KarlSchroeder/111161480469784844
A bad idea because: Since this is just a visualisation, the safety aspect is secondary to the way that it's quite disorientating, vertiginous, maybe even inducing of motion sickness.
I expect that a more practical design would have observation decks, but not huge windows everywhere. But that wouldn't make as nice a visualisation.
> Beautifully rendered video of a wheel-shaped space habitat with artificial gravity. This shows viscerally what I pointed out in my Substack posts on the Single-Family Space Colony: that windows are a bad idea in rotating environments
https://mastodon.social/@KarlSchroeder/111161480469784844
A bad idea because: Since this is just a visualisation, the safety aspect is secondary to the way that it's quite disorientating, vertiginous, maybe even inducing of motion sickness.
I expect that a more practical design would have observation decks, but not huge windows everywhere. But that wouldn't make as nice a visualisation.
Stranger Things pitch warble effect turned up to Eleven[1] at about 5:40!
That effect always evokes Vangelis on Blade Runner <- analog synths <- Buchla, who could have implemented steady pitch but apparently designed the oscillators to slowly lose pitch, because so do violins but so what? :)
Which makes one wonder...
Bizarro Buchla designs a precise oscillator -> precision and fidelity war in analog synths -> precise, staccato Bizarro Vangelis Blade Runner -> warbly Bizarro DX7 -> wide-vibrato 80s dance music -> warbly glitch hop -> VEDM (vibrato electric dance music) -> nostalgia for precise, staccato analog sounds in Stranger Things?
1: double pun: Spinal Tap and Stranger Things!
That effect always evokes Vangelis on Blade Runner <- analog synths <- Buchla, who could have implemented steady pitch but apparently designed the oscillators to slowly lose pitch, because so do violins but so what? :)
Which makes one wonder...
Bizarro Buchla designs a precise oscillator -> precision and fidelity war in analog synths -> precise, staccato Bizarro Vangelis Blade Runner -> warbly Bizarro DX7 -> wide-vibrato 80s dance music -> warbly glitch hop -> VEDM (vibrato electric dance music) -> nostalgia for precise, staccato analog sounds in Stranger Things?
1: double pun: Spinal Tap and Stranger Things!
That guy seems lonely out there past Neptune. Where is everyone?
Must. Resist. Obvious. Lowbrow. Pun.
They're on Pluto hangin' with their dawgs. Right!? Great pun, dred.
That one's a real ... Kuiper.
Bet you'll never guess where I pulled it from
Ceres, clearly, as this has been a ceres-ious thread.
I get motion sick quite easily and need to crank the comfort settings in VR, but watching this on a 42" monitor didn't really cause any discomfort at all.
It would be interesting to get a longer video from the dinner table for instance.
The window frames really help, so I'm not sure the final scene with the gentleman looking out the window would be something I would do.
It would be interesting to get a longer video from the dinner table for instance.
The window frames really help, so I'm not sure the final scene with the gentleman looking out the window would be something I would do.
My god this is one absolutely breathtaking video. Well done.
Space ships will be the cruise ships of 2200. Atleast they won't pollute earth. :)
Just watch where you point your burns with some of the more exotic drives, and all should be fine. ;-)
Bringing the water in that pool into orbit will set you back a couple billion dollars.
I'd just snag some off the asteroids being mined to supply all of the other construction materials.
Plenty of water in space! One of a few things you don't need to bring from home- just mine it up there
Water mined from the moon might be much cheaper by the time something like this is built. That being said, a giant sterile swimming pool seems like an odd feature for an interplanetary spacecraft. I'd rather see a well-balanced aquatic habitat, if anything.
Rounding error on the other costs involved, but sure.
How much do you think the whole ship would cost?
Probably around one to several twitters.
Reminds me of the old-school demos in the 1990s that had 3d animations. It certainly has a lot of the same homebrew vibe, but it doesn't look "artificial." It looks better than the effects in (the movie) 2001.
The short film on Wernquist's YouTube channel: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iiPmgW21rwY
That was pretty cool! Fascinating...
Wonder how difficult it was to convince whatever physics engine to simulate water with curved gravity.
Wonder how difficult it was to convince whatever physics engine to simulate water with curved gravity.
The water probably doesn't use physics. Instead it's a plane with a shader to simulate water.
Why is the CGI better than anything in “The Flash”,which I otherwise greatly enjoyed?
Sometimes it’s a job, with deadlines and budgets, with creative controls on top, with complicated IP licensing and cascading effects of depicting something on canon.
We always see the best when there is no compromise. When you have the time to dedicate to something you want seen, and the passion and the energy to see through it from concept to premiere, you can achieve the sublime.
We always see the best when there is no compromise. When you have the time to dedicate to something you want seen, and the passion and the energy to see through it from concept to premiere, you can achieve the sublime.
Grammatical nit in the voiceover: "sit or lie down", not "lay down."
> Grammatical nit in the voiceover: "sit or lie down", not "lay down."
... unless you're Sally[0]
[0]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lay_Down_Sally
... unless you're Sally[0]
[0]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lay_Down_Sally
Even Sally should lie down when she's not the subject of a song made famous by Eric Clapton. :-)
Lay as a present-tense intransitive verb is slang[1], just like "ain't" (another bit of slang in that song) and so it stands out in a video and presentation that otherwise conveys a sense of formality and seriousness.
[1]: https://www.merriam-webster.com/grammar/how-to-use-lay-and-l...
Lay as a present-tense intransitive verb is slang[1], just like "ain't" (another bit of slang in that song) and so it stands out in a video and presentation that otherwise conveys a sense of formality and seriousness.
[1]: https://www.merriam-webster.com/grammar/how-to-use-lay-and-l...
How large would a ring have to be to have 1g at 1 rotation per day? (Edit: earth day)
> A ring with 1g at 1 rotation per day
That's the parameters of a "Banks Orbital" https://theculture.fandom.com/wiki/Orbital_(Wikipedia_versio...
Which is:
> For such an orbital to reproduce the equivalent to the Earth's gravity, whilst maintaining Earth's 24-hour period of rotation, it would need to have a diameter of approximately 3.71 million kilometres, and spinning at 486,000 km/hr.
That's the parameters of a "Banks Orbital" https://theculture.fandom.com/wiki/Orbital_(Wikipedia_versio...
Which is:
> For such an orbital to reproduce the equivalent to the Earth's gravity, whilst maintaining Earth's 24-hour period of rotation, it would need to have a diameter of approximately 3.71 million kilometres, and spinning at 486,000 km/hr.
And no known material has enough tensile strength to make it work!
> no known material has enough tensile strength
I know that's true of Niven's ringworld, which is just unholy scale and parameters - 1 rotation like the earth does in a year, every 9 days! (1)
And so it cannot be made from atoms, something with "tensile strength similar to the strong nuclear force" is needed (2)
But is it true of Banks's more practical Orbital as well? This reference says yes: "No form of ordinary matter will support the tensions of a Banks Orbital's spin, so exotic matter is required." (3)
1) http://www.alcyone.com/max/reference/scifi/ringworld.html
2) https://larryniven.fandom.com/wiki/Scrith
3) https://www.orionsarm.com/eg-article/4845ef5c4ca7c
I know that's true of Niven's ringworld, which is just unholy scale and parameters - 1 rotation like the earth does in a year, every 9 days! (1)
And so it cannot be made from atoms, something with "tensile strength similar to the strong nuclear force" is needed (2)
But is it true of Banks's more practical Orbital as well? This reference says yes: "No form of ordinary matter will support the tensions of a Banks Orbital's spin, so exotic matter is required." (3)
1) http://www.alcyone.com/max/reference/scifi/ringworld.html
2) https://larryniven.fandom.com/wiki/Scrith
3) https://www.orionsarm.com/eg-article/4845ef5c4ca7c
What about mass stream technology? Why everyone forgets mass stream technology?
https://www.orionsarm.com/eg-article/47e1bb1fc898c
"Using accelerated streams of projectiles or particles to either transfer momentum or support a large structure."
This is basically active super strong matter that requires uninterrupted continuous control, power supply and real time adjustments - or bad things happen very very quickly. What is there not to love?! ;-)
https://www.orionsarm.com/eg-article/47e1bb1fc898c
"Using accelerated streams of projectiles or particles to either transfer momentum or support a large structure."
This is basically active super strong matter that requires uninterrupted continuous control, power supply and real time adjustments - or bad things happen very very quickly. What is there not to love?! ;-)
Firing a machinegun up at something, from a planetary surface seems like a possible * way to to keep it from falling down (i.e. to push against gravity) but not so simply as a way to keep it from flying apart - the stresses on a ring rotating fast in zero G space, are Centrifugal. You would have to shoot inwards at it, from nowhere.
* Possible, not necessarily practical.
* Possible, not necessarily practical.
Good point - this mass stream technology is crazy enough in normal cases (eq. space fountains, launch loops) & as you note almost impossible for a ring. :)
An SNF fibre or material would be ... interesting.
About 2 million km if GNU Units is serving me correctly:
For 1 g at 1 RPM:
You have: (1 gravity) / (1/1440 * rpm)^2
You want: million km
* 1.854336
/ 0.5392766
You have: (0.5 gravity) / (1 rpm)^2
You want: m
* 447.12962
For 1 g at 1 RPM:
You have: (1 gravity) / (1 rpm)^2
You want: m
* 894.25925
You have: (1 gravity) / (3 rpm)^2
You want: m
* 99.362139
If the Earth revolved at a rate of ~17 times per day, or once every 1:24:42, the centrifugal force at the equator should just match the pull of gravity.
Also via GNU Units:
That's about once every 84 minutes.
Which, I recognise is also roughly the orbital period for low-Earth orbit, that is, an object falling around the Earth without ever striking the surface. Though I think that may be a coincidence. Compare geosyncronous orbit (~42,000 km from Earth's centre), with the radius at which there is 1g of centrifugal acceleration at 1 revolution per 24 hours, ~2 million km.
Fun to play with however.
Also via GNU Units:
You have: sqrt(1 gravity / earthradius)
You want: revolution/day
* 17.060434
You have: 1 day / 17
You want: hour; minute; second
1 hour + 24 minute + 42.352941 second
That's about once every 84 minutes.
Which, I recognise is also roughly the orbital period for low-Earth orbit, that is, an object falling around the Earth without ever striking the surface. Though I think that may be a coincidence. Compare geosyncronous orbit (~42,000 km from Earth's centre), with the radius at which there is 1g of centrifugal acceleration at 1 revolution per 24 hours, ~2 million km.
Fun to play with however.
Just to clarify, I was solving for radius. Diameter would be 2x, and circumference would be 2pi larger. So 11.6 million km circumference for the 24-hour rotating ring.
If you had a trans-ring commute, at 100 kph, that would take you about 6 years 7 months one way.
A jet aircraft operating at nearer 1,000 kph would cut that to a far more manageable 7 months. Though I'd still use it as a reasonable argument for return-to-office.
Ping times would still be about 38 seconds even for free-vacuum direct transmission, around the ring itself. Given lightspeed is reduced to about 66% of its in vacuo* value in fibre optics, you'd have almost exactly a 1 minute delay. Something to keep in mind during those Ring Zoom sessions.
If you had a trans-ring commute, at 100 kph, that would take you about 6 years 7 months one way.
A jet aircraft operating at nearer 1,000 kph would cut that to a far more manageable 7 months. Though I'd still use it as a reasonable argument for return-to-office.
Ping times would still be about 38 seconds even for free-vacuum direct transmission, around the ring itself. Given lightspeed is reduced to about 66% of its in vacuo* value in fibre optics, you'd have almost exactly a 1 minute delay. Something to keep in mind during those Ring Zoom sessions.
It doesn't need to be that slow to avoid nausea. I've been to the top of the space needle with a rotating floor, and didn't feel any nausea.
The "1 day" rotational period is to give a natural-seeming day-night cycle, using natural sunlight from the star that the whole structure orbits.
It would be oriented so that the sun appears to rise just to the side of the ring - When it's overhead the arc of the ring would appear to be near the sun, but not eclipsing it. This is nearer to vertical than the sun over much of Earth much of the time.
It would be oriented so that the sun appears to rise just to the side of the ring - When it's overhead the arc of the ring would appear to be near the sun, but not eclipsing it. This is nearer to vertical than the sun over much of Earth much of the time.
Shooting from the hip, approx the circumference of the earth.
If that were true, we'd all fling off of the surface of the planet!
> Shooting from the hip, approx the circumference of the earth.
You're quite a bit off.
It's actually a little under 4 million km; several times the diameter of the sun.
You're quite a bit off.
It's actually a little under 4 million km; several times the diameter of the sun.
There's a reason why shooting from the hip isn't very accurate. :)
It's not that it's an "not very accurate" loose relation; there is no relation at all. The two numbers concern different forces - gravity inward due to mass vs. centrifugal force outwards due to spin.
>a short film I made to explore my fascination with artificial gravity in space.
I don't like how videogames have artificial gravity in space. It's a videogame, you can reduce the gravity to zero, instead we get the same gravity as anywhere else. I feel like Fry the first time he goes to the moon in Futurama.
I don't like how videogames have artificial gravity in space. It's a videogame, you can reduce the gravity to zero, instead we get the same gravity as anywhere else. I feel like Fry the first time he goes to the moon in Futurama.
Anywhere you are willing to share a copy of the music?
The artist of the music released "wanderers" another short film from Erik Wernquist without voice and just the music. Maybe he'll do the same for 1 rpm?
https://youtu.be/pIubYfm-YO0
Reminds me of the soundtrack of Tron: Legacy
The curved swimming pool at 2:35 is amazing.
Glorious
A future where we have artificial gravity but still don't know when to say "lie down" instead of "lay down". Very realistic!
Centrifugal force in a spinning ring is technically an artificial gravity substitute, you're right about that.
And this piece is sci-fi, but it's mostly sci-fi engineering, not sci-fi physics.
To suggest that ""We don't have it until the future" is wrong. Centrifuges are a thing. Building one in space would be only an engineering challenge. The "how it works" part is well-understood science. There are detailed plans for smaller rings in space, building one is just a matter of NASA budgets and priorities (they chose more robots to outer planets instead, over twirling canned humans in LEO, and there are upsides to that).
It's classical physics, even: The old rivals of that, Isaac Newton and Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz literally did the math in the 1600s on how centrifugal force works: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_centrifugal_and_cen...
And this piece is sci-fi, but it's mostly sci-fi engineering, not sci-fi physics.
To suggest that ""We don't have it until the future" is wrong. Centrifuges are a thing. Building one in space would be only an engineering challenge. The "how it works" part is well-understood science. There are detailed plans for smaller rings in space, building one is just a matter of NASA budgets and priorities (they chose more robots to outer planets instead, over twirling canned humans in LEO, and there are upsides to that).
It's classical physics, even: The old rivals of that, Isaac Newton and Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz literally did the math in the 1600s on how centrifugal force works: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_centrifugal_and_cen...
What would be unrealistic is if they spoke exactly the same dialect as us.
Clearly this is set after the great "eye-aye" vowel shift.
I thought it was all about the great “ay-eye” shift these days.
The Butlerian Jihad apparently leaves its phonetic phootprints.
I wonder if ancients felt this way about the sea, or sky, or mountains that seemed impassable to them, knowing or believing it was only a matter of time. Or did they wonder at areas just plain never-to-be-seen.