cheap artificial gravity

[spacefire]

This is kind of dumb and unsafe but it'd be really cheap:<br /><br />Have an astronaut go EVA with a swing tied with a long rope to a freely spinning small portion of the spacecraft.<br />When the rope is close to fully extended, the astronaut stands on the swing and fires a gas rifle as needed to get spinning. Voila, gravity. He or she can even jog in place on the swing to get those bones and muscles back to Earth condition.<br />Doing that every day should prevent muscle and bone loss on long trips. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>http://asteroid-invasion.blogspot.com</p><p>http://www.solvengineer.com/asteroid-invasion.html </p><p> </p> </div>

 

[frodo1008]

He! He! He! I seldom agree with you, but I do like your sense of humor!!<br /><br />However, building future space stations with the built in capability of rotating to generate artificial gravity is indeed a viable and even necessary option. Else how are we ever going to find out if partial gravities such as the moons at 0.16 g, or Mars at 0.38 g are going going to affect human beings for long stays on those possible colonized objects?<br /><br />I have often thought of starting such a thread myself, but I think it has already been done.

 

[vogon13]

Hey!<br /><br />Don't scrimp by going with the cheap artifical crap. Let's start putting condensed neutronium grav plating on the ISS !<br /><br /><br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#ff0000"><strong>TPTB went to Dallas and all I got was Plucked !!</strong></font></p><p><font color="#339966"><strong>So many people, so few recipes !!</strong></font></p><p><font color="#0000ff"><strong>Let's clean up this stinkhole !!</strong></font> </p> </div>

 

[j05h]

Cute, extremely dangerous concept, Spacefire. I think the recent "bicycle centrifuge" that NASA tested has a lot of potential. It'd be inside a module and run around a central axis. No spacewalks needed. <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /><br /><br />Something needs to provide skeletal stress/gravity on long duration flights. <br /><br />Josh <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div align="center"><em>We need a first generation of pioneers.</em><br /></div> </div>

 

[baktothemoon]

Is it possible to construct a garment that would apply an ammount of vertical pressure equivalent to Earth's gravity while it is worn?The suit could basically be elastic enough to resist the movement of astronauts' joints, keeping them strong. That way astronauts could still be weightless and not lose muscle and bone.

 

[spacefire]

there was something like this on Mir tied to a treadmill. I think it's a partial solution at best. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>http://asteroid-invasion.blogspot.com</p><p>http://www.solvengineer.com/asteroid-invasion.html </p><p> </p> </div>

 

[j05h]

Russians have an elastic jumpsuit that somewhat works, along with the treadmill harness. It still isn't a decent solution. The best long-term solution is spin-G, at least partial-G (1/3) part of the time. Whether you spin something in the ship or the whole ship is up to the engineers.<br /><br />Josh <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div align="center"><em>We need a first generation of pioneers.</em><br /></div> </div>

 

[rfoshaug]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>However, building future space stations with the built in capability of rotating to generate artificial gravity is indeed a viable and even necessary option. Else how are we ever going to find out if partial gravities such as the moons at 0.16 g, or Mars at 0.38 g are going going to affect human beings for long stays on those possible colonized objects? <p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br />Instead of building a rotating station in LEO (billions and billions of $$$) to find out how humans react after a year in the low gravity of the moon, I think it would be better to land people on the actual moon and let them live there for a year instead. It would work for longer stays as well. Plus, the simulation would then be completely accurate. <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#ff9900">----------------------------------</font></p><p><font color="#ff9900">My minds have many opinions</font></p> </div>

 

[inventorwannabe]

We must always keep humanity at the center in our visions! Rotational gravity is the way to go for the moment... This until we know how to create real artificial gravity in portions we choose!<br /><br />Brgds / InventorWannabe

 

[inventorwannabe]

OK, I willtry once more because my last postwas misslayed somwhere...<br /><br />After three years You wouldn't remember how to walk on earth. No, we need another way to choose the amount of gravity we need!<br /><br />Brgds / InventorWannabe<br />

 

[frodo1008]

I see no problem with doing both! What are we going to do, nickel and dime the entry of humanity into space? I don't know how many times I need to give this discussion, but I am always willing to try for the truth, again. Most posters on these boards realize that we accomplished fantastic things back in the 1960's in space. What is not so known is that in order to do that NASA's budget for that entire time frame averaged some 2% of the Federal budget. It peaked in 1965 at some 4% of that year’s budget. Now NASA's budget is only some 0.6% of the federal budget (and of course, because NASA's vast budget is so much less percent wise we are now having no problems with budget deficits at all??) at this time. And this is in the face of how much inflation since the 1960's? In comparison to others NASA is the most under funded agency in the federal system!!<br /><br />It is truly amazing to me that NASA has been able to do what it does do with this kind of treatment by our wise and ethical congress (which has also banned all pork spending!). If I sound a little sarcastic it is because I AM!!! Every time I get on these boards the only thing I hear is $$$$$, what an incredible bunch of baloney!! (that is the best wording that I can have for the attitudes of some on these boards)! <br /><br />OK, so much for the rant itself, how much could NASA's budget be increased by to be able to have a far more viable space program? Well, I think NASA's current budget is some $16.6 billion. To me at least they could do truly fantastic things if their budget was only half of what it was during the 1960's (after all, their have been improvements in technology that translates to economies in this area). That would be a budget of $25 billion per year with the current federal budget. I know that a leap this great would not work with congress, but perhaps NASA's budget could be increased by some standard such as 10% per year until it reached the figure of 1% of the federal budget (which

 

[qso1]

frodo1008:<br />Hopefully, this is not too much with a budget that runs some $400-500 billion in the red! If the people that are so worried about this on these threads really want to see this substantially reduced...<br /><br />Me:<br />I've ranted about NASA budgets to anti human spaceflight posters here to no avail. The deficit could be 25 trillion dollars, the government could spend 50 billion a year to study mental telepathy in amoeba's, and the anti human space crowd will still complain we spend too much on NASA.<br /><br />But I still do my rants from time to time. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><strong>My borrowed quote for the time being:</strong></p><p><em>There are three kinds of people in life. Those who make it happen, those who watch it happen...and those who do not know what happened.</em></p> </div>