I tend to think of it as the before and after of the F104 Delta Dart. This is where it was first applied by Whitcomb. The plane could not go SuperSonic so he encouraged a coke bottle design. They quickly reshaped it and the new model went supersonic on a climb. Whitcomb always said he thought of the airflow as stream pipes coming off the plane surfaces, and the goal was to streamline those out so the could flow undisturbed - and that he needed to visualize this in 3 dimensions. Fun fact: the space shuttle is NOT area-ruled yet goes as fact as Mach 24.

Cool video, except that it can work anyway. Obviously certain configurations would be more stable than others, but there's this little thing called, uuh, thrusters. They kind of create a reaction force than can be used to compensate for instability. But I guess it doesn't matter what the youtube comments say because you're just so much smarter than everyone. Let's stagnate and never even try to make a practical artificial gravity spacecraft because it seems too difficult for you. Why do you even care? It's not like NASA where their failed projects get funded by our taxes.

Starship is not going to Mars.

Would've enjoyed the video a LOT more if your cartoon spaceman wasn't inexplicably pledging allegience to the flag. Seriously what the heck is it supposed to be doing? Whatever it is, it does it way too much. This seriously detracted from the video. Really hope you've quit doing that.

I've seen (well, read about) the two-ship-and-tether method in science fiction. I am not an engineer, but it did seem to be a basically sound and relatively simple way of creating spin gravity.

I almost called this video clickbait, because I expected the title card diagram to be showing a spaceship accelerating towards its destination, flipping midway, then decelerating. Which would be my preferred method of artificial gravity - just constant 1g acceleration towards where we're going, then acceleration in the opposite direction to stop. Of course that also requires quite a bit of fuel, so I was wondering what the plan for pulling it off was. Now I see someone was actually proposing a completely different idea!

I'm kind of confused here. Please correct me if I'm wrong. The conclusions are: - The configuration that works is two ships with tether. - Adding third ship in the middle will make the rotation unstable. Is that correct? Thank you in advance.

Send robots to Mars and stay on earth and keep enjoying gravity.

Calling centripetal motion "artificial gravity" is plain wrong. It does NOT produce any kind of gravity. It doesn't even simulate gravity due to the extreme coriolis effect on humans. It's just a way to separate UP from DOWN. And it is 100% necessary for any human travelling to Mars that is NOT on a brachistochrone/torch-ship transfer. Any human who spends 6 months in zero G (Outside Earth's magnetic field!) would arrive at Mars in a very incapacitated state. They will ALL be sick, and weak, and unfit - right at the time when they need to be their healthiest, fittest, and strongest. Prediction: the entire first crew to attempt a Mars landing will all die before the mission ends.

If you need the cargo capacity of three starships for the journey - then what happens to the stability of the system if you connect them with three individual tethers to a central "knot"?

Is the thumbnail asking why the bell of the nozzle get hotter and expands?

I thought it may end up with 30 or 40 starships tethered like bicycle wheel spokes, with inter-leading side doors.

Interesting ideas, but I'm sticking to Theodore's assessment. I found one webpage where he was saying 80 meters radius is the minimum for 1G. The graph at 3:47 shows this. I've been designing a ship that is 200m long by 40m wide. The radius I was shooting for was 120m. Maybe it could be shorter than 80m. I'd like to see this topic debated. Edit: Keep in mind that a large ship could be assembled in orbit. I think that is what we should try to do. A purpose built cycler for Mars built in orbit. I suppose this is obvious to some.

why does your astronaut keep putting his hand over his heart? after a while it seems silly

What do you think of smaller centrifuges used on the Moon or Artificial Gravity on the Moon?

The problem with tether is that tethered objects tent to fly towards each other. The only way to counteract it is to make the tether rigid which would make it massive and weight almost as much as the ship. Now we’re back to square 1, when the construction will start to rotate in the axis of the tether. The only reasonable way to make artificial gravity is to make donut shaped ship where the outer wall will be the floor. It’s the only stable configuration. Now, it doesn’t have to be a true circle! You can simply attach dozens of ships together in a circular orientation. This is much easier, much less wasteful, and does not require any major in-flight construction!

Surely accelerating the ship throughout it's journey will eliminate the need for all these dodgy fixes

It doesn't really matter what you say, because you didn't use cartoons to make your point.

The moron that is Elon Musk is making out he wants to push Humanity towards Mars. Yet he is the one filling the Earths orbit with ever increasing amounts of orbiting junk from his rockets etc leading to a potential of it eventually being impossible to get a space craft through all that junk! Anything that goes up there will be torn to shreds by chunks of rocket, satellites and pieces of and all the way down to lethal and tiny flakes of paint that will be like tiny ultra high velocity armour piercing bullets. Musk has made it ever cheaper for countries and companies to send their crap into orbit and this will eventually form a complete junk shield surrounding the Earth. Maybe it's for the best? We as a species are destructive, polluting, murderous scumbags and if we could we would spread like an infection through our Solar System and beyond given the opportunity. We would wreck the entire Milky Way, luckily it appears that who/whatever lead to our creation has built in a system that will stop us going intergalactic (not counting Andromeda, on a collision course with the Milky Way anyways) what with all other galaxies shooting away from us many times faster than the speed of light.

Yeah that could have gone very bad for spacex

RIP Arecibo. You were something else.

When the video said "intermediate moment..." who else thought of the T-handle on the ISS?

8:19 Yeah it definitely can try to reduce it but you have to remember that energy cant just vanish

Theoretically why not though? It's better for long duration. Fleets of ships will likely travel interplanetary like ocean fleets did colonizing the Americas there are extra life boats if something we're to go wrong. If they are all traveling together, why not attempt to utilize this principle? The only reason I could think is because you need a distance of about twice the length of the ISS or a few football fields for it to simulate Earth gravity, but what about adapting to lessoned Mars gravity? Or suffering the mild effects of motion illness with a quicker rotation speed to counteract a smaller diameter for the ships to spin

RPM's? When did the minute become plural?

So I feel that Mars is a one way trip. So why not tether a crew in one and supplies in the other, land them both, and dig some graves.

let him try, you cant reason people out of stupidity because they didnt reason themselves into it

I wish cgp would respond

Heretic

Blasphemer!

Just make one deck of the ship rotate. Rest of ship can be setup for when ship is vertical on launch pad, but that one deck is setup for the walls being the floors

Oh boy, couldn't have aged better: "the 3 billion dollars are going to speed up starship's development". They already burned through it, without a single one successful landing. Want to see how they are going to do 16 refuelings in space at this rate

I suppose the one nice thing about the tethered method is since that would cause the gravity to be in the same direction as when the starship lands, allowing you to design the interior to be used the same way on land and in space, a minor benefit but a cool one

that area rule sounds much too dumb to be an actual rule. Surely the equalization has to be angularly close? contribution from the wings can't just be countered by a dip at the top of the fuselage? it must be right at the foot of the wing

Icosahedron: *H e y*

The real news here is that $3 billion dollars is $10 out of the pocket of every man woman and child in the US. So multiply the number of people in your house(if you have one!) by $10 and that is how much has been taken from you every time the government gives away another $3 billion. They spent $30billion well muliply that number by 10 again.

one concept not covered by this video, that I think would actually be quite nice, is to have two starships dock nose-to-nose, no tether required. Yes, it'll be a short radius, and having the crew cabins near the center of rotation compared to the fuel "wastes" the strongest centrifugal force, but it's easily the least complex and most practical approach. keep in mind, they don't need a full gee, just enough of a gradient to stave off the worst effects

"...this lunar landing contract came with 2.89 billion dollars, which is definitely going to speed up development..." Wow. _That_ aged like milk. Other than that, great video! Have a nice day!

I think you're right, but more interestingly hexagons are 2D. the shape, the term 2D and the word "flat" are all interchangeable. i'm sure there's some logic like squares are rectangles but rectangles are not squares, with the words I've gave, but none the less, 2D means Hexagon. Particles like atoms, most harmoniously stack in hexagonal formations, this is why bees and rock and so many other things as shown in CGP Grey's video; Because hexagons are the foundation to the 3rd dimension. where subject as you bring up, orientation, and tension can deform atomic hexagonal formations' triangular gaps into rectangles and pentagons introducing curvature in matter.

I wonder what kind of sensors would be used on a rotating ship and how they orient to the outside environment

How do I cite you in my thesis work :D Nice video

Micro contained neutron 'stars' or micro black holes that were in balance. Having them in a mini matrix, self contained etc. Has anyone ever thought that tiny singularities could act as real gravity?

Then…make the hexagons with six triangles…and win the lottery.

I was taught in school that polygons are shapes with “more than 4 sides” which also excludes Triangles. I’ve gone by that logic for years and now my reality is shattered. But even if Hexagons aren’t the Bestagons, they’re still my “Favourite-agons”.

THERE IS A HERETIC IN OUR MIDST!

his video was a joke about how easy it is to change people's minds with little logic. he literally becomes a priest at the end!

1)Посмотрите экспансию. Достаточно системы с постояннымиускорением. Вы сначала разгоняетесь до цели, на половины пути разворачиваете корабль и тормозите с тем же ускорением. Таким образом вектор тяги всегда направлены в одну сторону, прям как в лифте. Бах, у вас искусственная гравитация. Если хотите, чтобы было как на земле, то нужно ускоряться 9.8 км,/ч но это пока не достижимо. Зато можно постепенно кскоряться с помощью ионых двигателей

That’s pretty creative

Found your channel through this, if you're interested in making a video on that, I'd be very interested in seeing more about the feasibility of short radius centrifuges.

Why not just create a small artificial black hole in the middle?