Is artificial gravity scientifically possible?

Actually, it's not *). However, constant acceleration IS indeed one of the best bets for artificial gravity on a space vehicle. Incidentally, you don't need a full 1g. Even 1/6g like on the moon will make everything much easier.

Hans

*) Gravity diminishes by the square of the distance. Acceleration does not. You won't notice inside a spaceship, but it will be measurable.
If the outside (floor) of the rotating artificial gravity zone in a space ship is moving faster than the center, at what size rotating cylinder would the artificial gravity also diminish by the square of the distance matching real gravity? Or would it ever match at all?
 
If the outside (floor) of the rotating artificial gravity zone in a space ship is moving faster than the center, at what size rotating cylinder would the artificial gravity also diminish by the square of the distance matching real gravity? Or would it ever match at all?


Never match at all. But that's not usually relevant. Right now, on Earth, we live in a gravity well so deep that we can't sense the difference in gravity from our head to our feet. Nor even when hiking up a mountain can we notice the decline in gravity. The key size for a space colony would be to mimic that, not the r*2 falloff. The r*2 falloff doesn't appear to be relevant to our senses.
 
Never match at all. But that's not usually relevant. Right now, on Earth, we live in a gravity well so deep that we can't sense the difference in gravity from our head to our feet. Nor even when hiking up a mountain can we notice the decline in gravity. The key size for a space colony would be to mimic that, not the r*2 falloff. The r*2 falloff doesn't appear to be relevant to our senses.
Right, I get that. I was more using it like a thought experiment. In the gravity well of Earth, in 6 feet the drop off is minuscule, but not zero. I was just wondering how large a hamster wheel it would take to have the same non-zero effect.:boggled:

I understand we couldn't actually tell the difference either way, because it is so tiny anyway. But I guess you are right, the math might not ever converge.
 
Last edited:
Right, I get that. I was more using it like a thought experiment. In the gravity well of Earth, in 6 feet the drop off is minuscule, but not zero. I was just wondering how large a hamster wheel it would take to have the same non-zero effect.:boggled:

I understand we couldn't actually tell the difference either way, because it is so tiny anyway.


Oddly, it works out so that to have the same very slow fall-off in gravity with height at the earth's surface, on the floor of a rotating cylinder, the diameter of the cylinder would have to be the same as the radius of the earth.
 
One of the things I find amusing in science fiction is that when spacecraft start getting his with enemy weapons, they might lose power. The warp engines go off line. The lights fail. At some point there is only enough power for life support, and that is about to go, and everyone will die unless someone can effect repairs before the last commercial.

But the gravity generators never go offline, even in ships that have been adrift in space for hundreds of years.
Maybe they use a method that doesn't require constant energy.

For example, the only hypothetical trick I ever took semi-seriously for generating gravity with less than the expected amount of mass involved a spinning macroscopic object composed of a Bose-Einstein condensate. Nevermind the tiny little problems of how to build such an object and start it spinning, but once it is spinning, it might just tend to keep spinning until you do something to stop it.

In all the Star Trek I've seen (almost 100% up to two years ago) I can recall gravity being a story point only once. I think it was the premiere of Enterprise, where Travis found a "sweet spot" (null gravity) on the ship where he'd go to relax, and said every ship had one.
There was also the opening action scene of ST6, with assassins disabling gravity aboard the target's ship and walking around with magnetic boots while everybody else floated helplessly.

That scene also showed that Klingon blood is a strangely bright purple, whereas it's been shown to be more like human blood in a few other scenes in other episodes/movies.

I did give it some thought, not much mind you, but, it went along the lines of, does it matter what the craft/ship weighs in space all that much?
Force equals mass times acceleration. The more mass a thing has, the more force is needed to cause a given amount of acceleration. And the amount of mass we're talking about to generate substantial gravity is huge.

You'd get some help from the fact that the mass can be a lot closer to you than most of Earth's mass is and some lower gravity level than Earth's might be acceptable, but, even adjusting that amount down by a factor of a few million (for a mass a few feet away instead of four thousand miles away), you're still left with the fact that a "1/few-million"-th of the Earth's mass is still several billion tons. A space shuttle without its fuel or boosters weighs about 86 tons. So, for a shuttle-sized ship to carry enough extra mass to generate anything near Earth's gravity, the ship's mass including the gravity system would be somewhere around a hundred million times higher, give or take a digit or two. And then so would the thrust it would need in order to make the same kinds of maneuvers. And that's without accounting for the mass of whatever you hope to produce that thrust with.

What if the hyperdence matter was made in ultra thin sheets at the sweet spot between thick enough to generate a gravitational field but thin enough to be manageable?
Things that massive and dense don't form sheets. They form spheres. Even if you originally hocus-pocus it into existence as a sheet, the first thing it will do is turn into a sphere.
 
Last edited:
You'd get some help from the fact that the mass can be a lot closer to you than most of Earth's mass is and some lower gravity level than Earth's might be acceptable, but, even adjusting that amount down by a factor of a few million (for a mass a few feet away instead of four thousand miles away), you're still left with the fact that a "1/few-million"-th of the Earth's mass is still several billion tons.
The force due to gravity goes as r2, not r.

If you are a few million times closer to the source of gravity, the force will be a few trillion times greater.
 
The force due to gravity goes as r2, not r.

If you are a few million times closer to the source of gravity, the force will be a few trillion times greater.

Let us run with this novel idea. Spaceships are made from plates of pure neutrons without any spaces between them. Good news is that you would only need a fraction of a millimeter thick for the plate to be 1g a few millimeters away. The problem than is that 1.5 meters away (where a person's head would be) gravity hardly exists. A lot of a person's blood would be at their feet. A weird side effect is that you would have the floor on both sides of this plate. So to go from one deck to the next would involve turning upside down.

NB: Not done any maths on this. Someone want to work out the mass of this plating per square meter? It would make the spaceship very heavy.
 
Let us run with this novel idea. Spaceships are made from plates of pure neutrons without any spaces between them. Good news is that you would only need a fraction of a millimeter thick for the plate to be 1g a few millimeters away. The problem than is that 1.5 meters away (where a person's head would be) gravity hardly exists. A lot of a person's blood would be at their feet. A weird side effect is that you would have the floor on both sides of this plate. So to go from one deck to the next would involve turning upside down.

NB: Not done any maths on this. Someone want to work out the mass of this plating per square meter? It would make the spaceship very heavy.

As I said earlier I think it's a bad idea, but yeah tidal forces will make things even worse. You might be able to play with the density to get something a little more reasonable, but honestly why? If you want gravity just use spin.
 
I should point out that the mass of the earth is 6 × 1024 kg. One trillionth of that is 6 x 1012 kg. So we're still talking about trillions of kg.

That's in line with Delvo's billions of tons, he just didn't make clear the r2 factor, but the meat of his post is correct as far as I can tell.
 
Let us run with this novel idea. Spaceships are made from plates of pure neutrons without any spaces between them. Good news is that you would only need a fraction of a millimeter thick for the plate to be 1g a few millimeters away. The problem than is that 1.5 meters away (where a person's head would be) gravity hardly exists. A lot of a person's blood would be at their feet.
You're right up until that part I think. I think since the blood in your head is experiencing no gravity it would have no reason to migrate to your feet. In the situation you outlined, you body is experiencing less gravity pulling toward your feet overall.


ETA: Basically, this idea is comparable to the magnetic shoes option, but with an intractable amount of mass thrown in.
 
Last edited:
Why the heck would you think that? And I think you forgot to account for Ceres existing gravity?

ETA: Every description of Ceres' mantle that I can find suggests rotating Ceres at that rate would simply rip it apart. And I can't think of anyway to get it to spin that fast without destroying it in the process before the spin destroys it.

I completely agree. Heck, Earth would rip apart if you spun it enough to get negative G on the equator (in fact much before).

Even the best asteroids (for this purpose) are made of rock, and rock has poor tensile strength.

Hans
 
If the outside (floor) of the rotating artificial gravity zone in a space ship is moving faster than the center, at what size rotating cylinder would the artificial gravity also diminish by the square of the distance matching real gravity? Or would it ever match at all?

Uhm, it would diminish at some rate towards the center, where it would be zero. I don't think the function is linear, but ... would have to look it up.

You would get all kind of interesting Coriolis effects in a set-up like that, but you could live with that. One problem with the space wheel design is that it would have to be steadied somehow. Otherwise, when crew and various stuff moved around inside, the rotation speed would vary and the rotational center would shift. You would probably need some counterweights that moved automatically.

Hans
 
The Coriolis problems with spin-gravity diminish with greater diameter. I worked out the exact formulas once to predict how bad each of the main issues would be for a given radius, in order to respond to somebody who'd postulated a habitat with a radius or diameter of 20 miles, and found that it pretty much didn't matter at all at that scale; they weren't zero, but they were things nobody would ever notice, like jumping up and falling back down a few dozen milliseconds earlier or later than you'd otherwise expect.

But, if you're resource-limited and don't get to go for such an arbitrarily huge engineering nightmare, you could build in a straight line instead of a circle, with two distinct crew/passenger sections as far apart as possible.
 

Back
Top Bottom