Look closer! The rotating habitat is counter-balanced by a dynamic flywheel (see time-stamp 00:16). To "balance" the rotational torque you need a counter-rotating mass of equal mass rotating at the same rate, or a SMALLER mass rotating at a FASTER rate.

Thank you, glad you enjoyed! Based on the great work by the authors of the documents linked in the video description

Thanks for your support! Yes, I am in a bit of a lull at the moment with *Real Lifeᵀᴹ* taking precedence over making videos - I'll likely get back to it again soon...hopefully 👨‍🚀

Yep, Larry Niven wrote some of the greatest Hard SF ever conceived - so many inspirational ideas and concepts - he is definitely missed!

Refer to video "Mission to Callisto" kzbin.info/www/bejne/bH7Jf6NjfbelsLM

Wow, did not enjoy that one at all...I suppose they did alright with the effects for such a low budget flick, but the story could have been less tedious and more engaging IMO...just my 2c worth 🥱

You're repeating yourself a bit there lol

This classic NASA design predates Europa Report by about 10 years, but it wasn't too bad a movie - a good attempt, with some nice effects. I like Sharlto Copley's work in general, but this one had a bit too much "soap-opera" drama for my tastes <shrug> just my opinion

Refer to video "Mission to Callisto" kzbin.info/www/bejne/bH7Jf6NjfbelsLM

It would look like being inside a 1.5m - 2m diameter curved tube. The sides would be lined with storage spaces, exercise machines, and sleeping bags. The space is fairly cramped (barely enough space to crouch inside) but easily navigable as it's only a fraction of G (1/4 to 1/3 "normal" gravity). Note that the torus is for sleeping and exercising within. It is not a habitat for living within on a full-time basis. It is used to ameliorate the negative health effects of microgravity, supplemented by additional exercise. The effectiveness of such a system for countering microgravity health issues is currently unknown. It may be that only a fraction of G is sufficient, but exactly how much artificial gravity is helpful (and for how long one must be exposed to it for any benefit), is currently a matter of speculation. Obviously more empirical research and study is required to determine this, but it certainly would be worth the effort to find out!

@@fragomatik what if they made it livable and tall enough to stand erect and walk around. What if they designed the interior with crew quarters, recreation area, kitchen/galley, exercise area, research lab etc? Like a modified WW1 German submarine.

@@lancewilliams4190 A fully "liveable" habitat would be too massive for the vehicle configuration shown in the video. The additional mass required would reduce the overall payload allowance and mission range, as it would require more energy to operate and more fuel/propellant/consumables to last the mission - it all adds up. I guess what I'm saying is that one can do anything if one can afford it, but space agencies generally want to be as cost-effective as possible while meeting mission objectives. What you're suggesting can be found in larger, more powerful designs such as NASA's *Discovery II* kzbin.info/www/bejne/j2bdiqSterCheqM and *HOPE* kzbin.info/www/bejne/pHmoXpauo9Jpnbs or even my own fictional & speculative *Fusion Powered Explorer* kzbin.info/www/bejne/r4bUlmiOr7afhck which is sort of like Nautilus-X on steroids

*Already replied to your other posted question about this, but answering here as well for others to see...* It would look like being inside a 1.5m - 2m diameter curved tube. The sides would be lined with storage spaces, exercise machines, and sleeping bags. The space is fairly cramped (barely enough space to crouch inside) but easily navigable as it's only a fraction of G (1/4 to 1/3 "normal" gravity). Note that the torus is for sleeping and exercising within. It is not a habitat for living within on a full-time basis. It is used to ameliorate the negative health effects of microgravity, supplemented by additional exercise. The effectiveness of such a system for countering microgravity health issues is currently unknown. It may be that only a fraction of G is sufficient, but exactly how much artificial gravity is helpful (and for how long one must be exposed to it for any benefit), is currently a matter of speculation. Obviously more empirical research and study is required to determine this, but it certainly would be worth the effort to find out!

The entity responsible for this design in 2011 was NASA TAAT (Technology Applications Assessment Team). The team leader was Mark Holderman. For reference, the source presentation document that this video is based on is linked in the video description text.

No need to imagine it, Scott, as the main idea behind this multi-mission design is that it is modular, in order to accommodate available tech. That is: different modules for different missions, using technology as it becomes available. The original presentation shows one configuration with chemical propulsion, and another with VASIMR. I chose to illustrate the VASIMR version. Of course VASIMR is really best powered by a nuclear reactor, but it *will* work with PVAs apparently <shrug> So the bottom line is that if you have a bi-modal nuclear-thermal propulsion unit (or even an advanced plasma drive like VASIMR) ready to go (for example), just bolt it on and away you go... For reference, the source document that this video is based on is linked in the video description text.

Wow, thank you

Thank you! KZbin & google seem to hate me but I keep coming back - feels like Stockholm Syndrome lol

Thanks buddy! Two things: 1. I *love* your username 2. I *love* your DC-X avatar image Happy New Year!

Hey Karsten, yes i think youtube is being weird it doesn't seem to have sent notifications when i posted this one a month ago. Hope you're well my friend, and not working too hard! 👍👍

@@fragomatik Oh, you know what Perry, I've been on sick leave for 4 years and have had operations 3 times. I'm currently familiarizing myself with Blender and making music on the side...so I don't get too bored. And by the way, you apparently didn't receive any notification from me from YT twice. 😉 1. in the video that I made with Imagine kzbin.info/www/bejne/eKHZi6uagbWcrck 2. and in the video what I did with Blender and tried out my Korg Wavestate. kzbin.info/www/bejne/gGTbg4aoZ5igj7c

@@3d-marabu Sorry to hear about your health issues my friend...wish I could sit down and have a beer with you! Wow, these are great! Imagine still produces some nice visuals. But Blender beckons me with everything I see that people are doing - but alas I am too lazy in my old age - I am getting closer to 70 yrs old lol! And I like the Korg music as well - you are truly creative, Karsten! No, youtube didn't notify me about these - what the hell are they doing? I've checked all my settings and it all looks normal...YT are so disappointing these days 😡

@@fragomatik Perry, I'm already over 61 years old...so I'm not a youngster anymore. 😁

@@fragomatik It's just early in the morning here...and the first snow has fallen overnight and it's uncomfortably cold. So more time for 3D videos again 😉👍

Muchas gracias, my friend!

Hi and thank you! No, not KSP, but a vintage 3D modelling and animation software called "Imagine-3D" en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imagine_(3D_modeling_software)

Thanks! I kinda get what you mean, but "vulnerable" is a somewhat relative term. For example: the ISS which is in essence a collection of disparate modules wrapped in thin aluminium sheeting has been in service for more than 20 years in Earth orbit. During that time there have been no serious injuries or fatalities. There have been some minor impact events from sand-grain-sized dust particles, and a coolant leak which turned out to likely be a sensor error. None of those events resulted in any significant danger to the station or crew. Surely the ISS would be *more* vulnerable than a massive habitat such as a Stanford Torus, and the ISS seems to have avoided destruction so far. The biggest danger to any large structure in space is from impacts, which are statistically *extremely* rare. Size Mass Rate of Occurrence ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 1/4" pebble 0.01 oz. Every 3 yrs 2" rock 3.5 oz. Every 7,000 yrs Boulder 1 Ton Every 250M yrs (Source: T.A. Heppenheimer "Colonies In Space") As for vulnerabilities from *within* - I'm not sure what you're getting at. Do you mean something malicious such as sabotage, or something accidental such as hardware failure? I suppose one could argue that it's possible to plan for such things in order to avoid any major or disastrous issues. The fact is that activities in space are inherently hazardous. However, the risk/reward ratio is high in favour of taking the chance since the rewards can be so valuable in the long term. Humans have always taken calculated risks in order to earn a "profit" - either monetarily, or in expertise and knowledge. I don't really see that changing in the future.

Hey thank you! There's no 'hibernation' facility necessary for this one. Although this is really just a fanciful design I cobbled together to get back into practice, it is based largely on the Discovery II (you've probably seen it here on my channel), which could do the Jupiter trip in about 3 months - so not too long. This ship is much larger, with a crew of 10+ and plenty of living space. It also assumes a much more efficient fusion engine, powerful enough to move all this stuff around. The centrifuge on this is huge by comparison to the Discovery II, and can provide a comfortable 0.38G (about the same as Mars gravity), and is intended for the crew to actually live and work in there. There's also a large Lab and Workspace module which is in zero G for research and other activities. I've included heaps of consumables storage (the 3 containers at the front between the shield and the centrifuge), so plenty of power, air, food & water to go around, especially if you factor in hydroponics, water recycling, and air scrubbers. In comparison some ISS crew have spent many months continuous duty in space (in a much smaller space and in microgravity!) and they have managed to stay relatively sane lol! Why was I away? Thanks for asking! Mainly it was due to computer issues. My GPU failed first, and a couple of months later the motherboard failed and took out a hard drive, too. I had to rebuild my system from backups and it took some time as other priorities took precedence - life can get quite complicated as you can appreciate! Due to the pandemic and other work related issues I was unable to do much about it until recently. Also, I've been a bit disappointed with youtube and the way they treat us small creators - it was demoralising and killed my inspiration. I'm not the only one affected - and I shouldn't say too much here in public - but suffice to say youtube run the site *their* way and there's not much a little fish like me can do about it. Never mind...it is what it is! Anyway, hope you continue to enjoy my modest little channel such as it is - and thanks so much for your support! 🚀

Ok, i see, so, what's the time it takes to go to Jupiter in comparison to the Discovery II, and what´s the speed of the spaceship? And also, are u going to do animations about FTL spaceships like the IXS Enterprise or other spaceships that u designed youself with those qualities? Is actually very interesting to see those warp spaceships desings made by other people, like the Star Trek fan community for example. And very sad what happened, at least isn't worse than we expected...and yeah, KZbin has become a literal hell for most of the content creators, even worse for the small channels like this one, You are the most affected by the new strict regulations and by the disorganized algorithm that does not allow you to be seen so easily, if people want more Skibidi blop blop blop yes yes, that's what they get. And no problem bro, your content is very interesting. Good job!

@@carlangastangas5698 Well in my imagination it takes around the same time to get to Jupiter (2 or 3 months) but since this is supposed to be a more powerful, efficient engine it can transport much more payload - so this means it can have a bigger crew and more equipment and supplies. My big creative challenge at the moment is inspiration. If I see or hear of an idea that is interesting enough to me, I may find time to illustrate it. But lately it is harder to find that special something that generates excitement - but I'll keep looking lol!

Jettisoning tanks is done to save fuel. Why waste fuel transporting an empty tank? The empty tanks aren't really "lost" when they're jettisoned. Since their speed, location, and course at the time of jettisoning is known, they can be tracked pretty much forever. Tracking such things as depleted tanks and other "junk" is a good idea because it allows you to avoid colliding with it in future, or to pick it up again at some later stage. Classic Sci-Fi literature often has "rock-jock" characters that make a living by collecting discarded hardware, and salvaging it for re-use. If it's really old stuff, it may even have increased value as a museum piece.

Although what you said is technically correct, it's also terribly obvious, and not exactly unexpected. But it is a bit churlish to denigrate the engineering as "not beautiful". There are many ways to implement artificial gravity using centrifugal/centripetal 'force' - this is just *one* of them. Examples of other methods (including rotating the vehicle around a short or long axis) can be found amongst my other videos on this channel.

It would take us orders of magnitude more time to clutter any solar orbit line enough to be a problem. Even so the earth and mars would preterb the orbits of any debris out of the flight path of any missions.

I'm no scientist (just a humble artist!) but I'll try to point you in the right direction... Here are the basic specs: Rotation Rate: ~2rpm Radius: 250m Length: 325m Circumference: 1570m Centripetal force at 250m radius: 1G I believe you also need to know the *mass* of the object to work out the moment of inertia? If so, have a look at the linked paper that this video is based on (it may be in there). *Also, there are some calculations shown in 'Appendix A' that may be relevant to your question* alglobus.net/NASAwork/papers/2007KalpanaOne.pdf Let us know how you go 👍

@@fragomatik No problem. Rotating bodies are stable when they rotate around the maximum and minimum moment of inertia. If rotating around the medium moment of inertia, that rotation is unstable and will flip one half turn in the minimum for one complete turn around the medium. In this case, from what I can see, your rotation is around the maximum. Google "The Tennis Racket Theorem" on youtube.

@@qpwodkgh2010 Ah right, yes I've heard of that! Globus et al found that for maximum stability in rotating cylinders, cylinder length must be less than 1.3r Kalpana complies with that to provide very good rotational stability

Thanks! I'm glad you enjoyed!