I'm a recent Aerospace Engineering grad, from the University of Colorado, now a Test and Evaluation Engineer in the Aerospace industry. This channel is a place where I discuss science, occasionally build projects, and have fun making videos.
Bros, I've seen some of the mass satellite launches from a home in Florida. I thought it was war, at first, but then watched in awe. I saw one of them split apart in half a dozen pieces to smash in to the back of a rocket, which absolutely left faster than you'd believe. Only reason why I said this is because of the thumbnail, and I've seen some shit.
Yeah and the fact that upper half of your body almost not experiencing weight is even better than cringe long radius centrifugal force field with low gradient.
That was actually a control setup where they intentionally put the eyes at the center, they also extended the arm to put gravity on the eyes but it didn’t seem to help (at least in earth’s gravity) I wasn’t able to find footage of that unfortunately
Read Andy Weir's Hail Mary. (The guy who wrote The Martian) It features a tether artificial gravity scenario. It's way more on the Fi site of SciFi than his other titles but still quite entertaining.
Why does the cartoon astronaut keep checking to see if his sunglasses are in his chest pocket? After the first 38 checks you'd think he would have figured out he left them on the coffee table.
Geez, if ur gonna do it, do it well Elon. You send two Spaceships, and tether them. Center of gravity at the center of the tether, instant spin grav. I mean 𝒚𝒐𝒖 should know this right ? The tether can be loose or rigid, doesn't matter much, but semi-rigid would be best. (A little elasticity is guud.)
NASA should buy out SpaceX and develop their stuff in-house. Subcontracting spaceflight has done nothing but balloon costs, waste resources, and cause deaths. Stop handing taxpayers' money to billionaires for the privilege of being allowed to build rockets.
You know nothing about what you’re talking about. “Balloon cost”? You mean make the cheapest per kilogram rockets ever? “Waste resources”? You mean use less resources than ever by reusing the first stage of almost every launch? Cause deaths? What deaths has SpaceX ever caused? “Stop handing taxpayers money to billionaire for the privilege of being allowed to build rockets”. So it’s better to give that money to an agency that has a year delay every week and their most recent rocket will cost 2 billion dollars… *PER ROCKET* The amount of brain damage in your comment is unbelievable.
If compressibility effects are responsible for this behavior of acceleration in diverging section for supersonic flow, why doesn’t the same happen in case of flow slightly below Mach 1, when the compressibility effects are significant as well?
It’s not just compressibility, the converging nozzle is increasing the thrust by increasing the pressure in the combustion chamber, but that means information has to flow upstream from the convergent section into the chamber. The point at which information can no longer flow back up the flow is the speed of sound.
@@ConHathy Thanks a lot...still trying to wrap my head around this! I am finding compressible flow topic a bit difficult to understand...Can you suggest some good resources/books to develop a good understanding?
Obviously triangles are stronger than hexagons, but the reason honeycombs are comprised of hexagons is because they offer an optimal compromise between structural integrity and material usage. The simulation at 6:00 -- while very cool -- is somewhat of a moot point since (as u later explain) it is "wet spaghetti". Circles and triangles are the strongest 2D shapes but interestingly both form hexagonal patterns when packed together
Well, it is a non problem as space is totally fake. Really, you have a ball w/o a cover surrounded by fake space, coupled with the fact that no one in history has ever shown gravity defying Boyle's gas law, that is gravity preventing gas from expanding to full the lower pressure volume, most reasoning folks would conclude that the surface pressure of the ball would be equal to fake space!!!!
That "small" centrifuge takes up a lot of realestate in the context of a small spaceship. Plus the crew would have to take turns getting access to it to take the turns.
In referring to the short centrifuge: you stated that they were unable to reduce pressure in eyes. With the head near the center would that not produce less gravity near the center ?
That was actually a control setup where they intentionally put the eyes at the center, they also extended the arm to put gravity on the eyes but it didn’t seem to help (at least in earth’s gravity) I wasn’t able to find footage of that unfortunately
You just need to connect the two ships by a long cable nose-to-nose. They're designed to be lifted by the nose under 1g - so the structural requirements are handled. Also, what is "floor" is the floor on Earth, Mars, and on the trip between the two.
I can not understand you saying that a small centrifuge inside the starship would be better after showing how nice a cable would be. A centrifuge on the inside would probably be a drum shaped thing, with a battery and a motor. You need a battery and a motor, because on the inside of the ship there is air resistance, so you have to constantly use energy to keep spinning. My guestimation is the system would add 50kg. Compared to a cable: Starship fully loaded weighs ~1450t and a steel cable that could support that at 1000m length would roughly weigh 20t (maby you could use kevlar or similar instead i'm just using worst case scenario). In space it will have much less fuel though and would probably be lighter. So yeah it would be heavier. But: Only a few or one person could use the drum at a time and to get in or out you would need to turn it on and off or do something (probably not easy) to transition from floating to spinning. The gradient of the gravity would be quite big which is not realy helping health, everything will feel weird and you will also probably be floating most of the time. The two Starships would need to have one curled up cable (for example one ship all stuff for humans, one ship cargo, for building a station at the destination and the cable in the nose of the cargo ship). Then the ships would have to do something similar to docking a space station, then tension the cable, spin up, and thats how you have gravity behaving very close to normal all the time. Things with water will be working normaly without special contraptions (toilet, shower, bed,...) which might mean the equipment costs less: - space toilet: ~$23 million - launching 20t cable to orbit at todays starship costs: ~$20 million - and with future projected costs: ~$0,2 million The people will not have to adapt very much and the body will stay normaly healthy. I think it would also be much more relaxed to jurney this way.
Having seen videos of ship cables breaking I think the scary part of tethers breaking is more the whip of the tether under high strain back towards the ship. I don’t know how much tension would be put on the tether though so could be a negligible risk.
Why not just accelerate at 1G for part of the day? Then cost for part of the day and then if you have hit your maximum velocity turn the ship 180 degrees and decelerate at 1G for part the day?
Why would you waste fuel each day decelerating, and on the topic of fuel no rocket has enough to do this. Rocket engines also for safety need to be lit the minimum number of times
Short range centrifuge? The head was at least near if not a bit beyond the center of rotation. So when this thing rotates the "gravity" in the head could even point slightly "up"😂 The the "eye pressure" would even be worsened.
That was actually a control setup where they intentionally put the eyes at the center, they also extended the arm to put gravity on the eyes but it didn’t seem to help (at least in earth’s gravity) I wasn’t able to find footage of that unfortunately
I believe that if technology keeps progressing at the rate it does, one day we will have similar control over gravity that we have over electromagnetism today. I couldn't even speculate at the implications without getting into sci-fi territory. Like being able to bend space into any shape you want. Even being able to punch holes in it. We could manipulate gravity to contain fusion reactions. Who knows. It's hard to speculate about it.
01:10 "Schedule 40 PR(pressure rating) 450 psi @23°C" That 450 psi rating is for continuous pressure -- not a shock load, as imposed in an air cannon. And why not use Schedule 80? Though I am not saying PVC -- or any plastic -- should be used at all. Many people seem to get away with this. Some do not. See this video: "PVC air cannon explodes!!!" by Brayden Barlow They were mystified at the 3-minute mark of that video: "How did that even happen?!" For starters: no engineering analysis, no research on the dangers, and picking up the cheapest thing they found at Home Depot. They, and you -- so far, avoided receiving a Darwin Award. Google for: Can You Use PVC Piping for Compressed Air? It finds this text: "When using PVC pipe with compressed air, you run serious risks. The most dangerous of these is that of explosion. If put under stress that it cannot handle, PVC pipe can explode, sending plastic shrapnel flying. There have been numerous cases of this happening in compressed air applications" Your channel's home page says, "I'm a recent Aerospace Engineering grad" I doubt that your studies included the hazards of using PVC pipe for compressed air. What did your studies tell you above material selections? Did you use thinner pipe because it is cheaper? Are you aware that Schedule 80 -- and thicker pipes -- are even things? Use some of that engineering education to protect yourself and others -- it is one of the duties of an engineer. The YT nannies should spend more effort on taking down all the PVC air cannon videos and less on censoring "unapproved speech."
wait, wait, wait ... so basically most of the confusion around hexagons being so cooligon is confusion over their use in atomic illustrations that are mistaken for actual architecture? So most of this is based on ... poor reading comprehension?
Almost like it’s testing. Also your comment is id!otic because very recently SpaceX has safely landed both half’s of starship, and proved that the fins are over engineered as it had no problem landing safely with damaged fins
Ok, every carnival or fair I went to as a kid had one of those spaceship rides, where everyone lays against the walls, and the whole room spins fast enough to pin you to the wall. The panels of the wall are on rollers, so you slide up and down based on speed. We'd break the rules by trying to stand up on the wall. Why aren't universities buying these up??
Why even bother with artificial gravity when we are so very far away from solving the logistic of food supply for a "simple" travel to Mars and back ? Anyone who is foolish enough to attempt this trip within the next century will starve to death long before reaching the red planet (not to mention the 50% chances of exploding at launch if you use Elon Musk's Starshit). 😬
I worked in R&D rocket engine test for 25 years. One of our engineers had a saying that proved true many times. He used to say "we are always 10 milliseconds away from the end of a program".
All the problems you name like rotational stability have already been solved, like fifty years ago. Just talk to an aerospace engineer. Or perhaps you have and didn't like what they were telling you because the facts disagreed with your preconceived notions. A modular ring design overcomes the direction of down problem. Weight, multiple launches, these are red herrings. As well as artificial gravity you need radiation shielding. If you have to build a ten kiloton space transport to overcome the problems, then you have to build a ten kiloton space transport to overcome the problems. No getting around it. Cheap and nasty solutions tend to be cheap and nasty. I came here looking for high grade information and was severely disappointed.
