Can We Create Artificial Gravity?

[@mynametranslationisliteral6305]

we must use "bill gates" as currency in space

[@edwardsindustries-20yearsa54]

talha dugul maybe "Elon Musk" Is a better alternative.

[@senseik6766]

Eso im going to go to pick up Putin. He is worth 200 billion. Is Russain money allowed lol

[@TheNightquaker]

I think the joke is that "Bill" here means banknote. So we could use Bill Gates as currency because banknotes are currency.

[@martiddy]

talha dugul There's a currency called "Solar" and it's going to be use in a spacial nation called Asgardia.

[@skipperofschool8325]

talha dugul hell no

[@CristianLopez-xi4rt]

We spent 7 Trillion dollars on the Iraqi wars, I'm sure we can spare 5 Trillion for space exploration.

[@Callsign_Prophet]

Ah yes but then how would we employ all our population? Lol whenever the job market is shrinking there's a war. Hell of a coincidence.

[@beerdrinkingdwarf7139]

To do that, you'd have to change human nature.

[@justinthyme1834]

All those trillions didn't get spent in iraq if that much was spent! Maybe one and a half of them did but the majority went to bush and his cronies of bilderburg skull and bones. Biggest money hoarders in the world!!!!

[@koolerpure]

7 trillion isnt that much when its for nation security, its a shame that is where the focus is though

[@Thisisaweirdthing2makeusdo]

Azriel money not a problem if every person involved says they will do it for free? Say an end of the world scenario. Always laugh when money is involved in space exploration problems. It’s not like we have to buy all the equipment of some alien Walmart lol 😂

[@Nosttromo]

"what if money wasn't an issue?" proceeds to talk about money for the rest of the video

[@yunan9610]

He did talk about the amount of steel that is needed

[@larryhall2805]

'No bucks, no Buck Rogers.'

[@AntonySimkin]

Actually... you don't need to build the entire space station... You can built a wire-connected rooms structure that keeps it's shape by centrifugal force and some really small lifts to get into the center room, where people would socialize and feel no centrifugal gravity. That would reduce the cost and the amount of materials by A LOT.

[@tsamoka6496]

Agreed, it was a little annoying. Basically all he said boiled down to "it's super expensive", and nothing about HOW it could be done. His example of the station from Space Odyssey only talked about making it spin faster, not about what the right size would be. This video? Great idea, failed execution. =^x^=

[@MrFable93]

Huh? That just means what if they had the money and it isn't a problem to spend

[@CMZneu]

We see this design everywhere but to clarify, it doesn't have to be a wheel, it can be just a long beam like structure with living spaces at the ends that spins on its center, that would reduce the cost of material considerably.

[@sanjivinsmoke3322]

If I heard correctly, it says 1 million tons. World aluminum production is about 30 million tons annually. If it takes 5 yrs to build, that would be 200 thousand tons a year and the world aluminum market would just barely notice the effect.

[@abhijitmajee6754]

Yeah, you are correct. As of 2017, the total global annual aluminium production stands at about 60 mil tonnes. Carrying this payload and building in space must be a greater problem as there arent enough resources and manpower to build that big a structure in space. Building ISS itself took around 12 years I suppose.

[@talyn3932]

@Hernando Malinche Why would you have to cut pensions. The resources available in space dwarf those of Earth. The first corporations to exploit them would make their money back in no time. To do this only takes administrative effort... not cost. All upfront costs would be paid back and then ensuring pensions for generations.

[@wdd3141]

Wait for it,... That's still a lot of recycled cans. (troll face)

[@talyn3932]

@Hernando Malinche thats beside the point. Open it up to private enterprise and the private sector will absorb the cost. Tax it and cover ongoing costs such as policing and regulating it.

[@wasd____]

@Hernando Malinche It's very difficult to justify cutting pensions either ethically or legally, because ethically speaking pensions are earned and cutting them is cheating people out of what they were promised, and legally they constitute a form of contract so courts are going to have something to say about breaching that contract.

[@martinsavage6838]

You don’t need a massive wheel. Two disc shaped modules rotating at the end of a very long cable or truss would do the same job.

[@avid0g]

Yes, this! The floors could have a slight cylindrical curve matching the circumference of spin. The connection would be several parallel pipe made into a rigid truss. If that is not important, then just walk up and down slight slopes. The rigid truss is replaced with "light weight" redundant tethers. I just finished calculating various distance between two tethered Starships vs angular velocity for Mars and Earth gravity.

[@sirnikkel6746]

¿What about that this would be the first stage of the project and you keep expanding it until you have the entire ring-wheel?

[@martinsavage6838]

Slavko Bogdanic Exactly. You have a 1G living and working base and you just extend out from each end as you need more space.

[@sirnikkel6746]

*Big B r A i N time!*

[@pressaltf4forfreevbucks179]

@@sirnikkel6746 big brain drain

[@ArchOfWinter]

Step 1: Build a space elevator on the equator (Future delivery cost for any space construction will be significantly decreased because of this) Step 2: Build a small spinning ring station at the counterweight of the space elevator for workers to live in Step 3: Build dry docks to constructs space vessels with mining vessels as a priority Step 4: Mine asteroids and the moon for resources exclusively for the use of space travel and construction Step 5: Build a larger and more average people friendly spinning ring station for civilian use Step 6: Proliferate civilian space travel Step 7: Build 2 or 3 more space elevators separating by 120 degrees or 90 degrees on the equator to make space travel more accessible for people of every hemisphere Step 8: Place solar energy arrays on the counterweights stations to beam back down power to the ground via laser (Because the elevators are so tall, the Earth's shadow won't block the solar arrays, thus allowing them to produce electricity 24/7) With enough of these arrays on the towers and receiving station on land, it will make all fossil fuel and even wind energy obsolete Step 9: Unlimited clean energy mean slowing down climate changes and possibly reverse it with the added benefits of removing oil as a factor of political conflicts

[@Trayo612]

If they could only find a way to produce Graphene in larger quantities. This would be a big Step on the way to Step 1

[@RealEngineering]

Graphene isn't strong enough either, I will make a video about this eventually. I actually specialized in carbon fiber composites for my thesis. A subject I am really passionate about, but people overstate the strength of composite materials. I would say, with a fair bit of confidence, that we will never see a space elevator.

[@ArchOfWinter]

I say even if it seem impossible for such strong material to exist now, we should still chase after it. We will learn something new every attempt we try.

[@Trayo612]

Real Engineering Huh? I thought that Graphene was the only material which could withstand the forces? Sad to hear that this isn't the case at all.

[@AndrewMeyer]

Apparently boron nitride nanotubes and diamond nanothreads are also candidate materials for building a space elevator (though I imagine we're nowhere close to being able to produce those in significant enough quantities to be used for that purpose).

[@paulgibson8846]

Seen it on an alien space ship I took custody of in deep space.

[@soumyadipbhattacharya6721]

😂😂

[@isagredanzelb.5602]

Did you get any blueprints about lightspeed spaceship?

[@God-hr9tm]

*Ayyy, y’all finna get there. When y’all get there.*

[@NarutoUzumaki-oc7we]

@@God-hr9tm God?!

[@God-hr9tm]

@@NarutoUzumaki-oc7we *What you want little nigga?*

[@Mellowspark1]

Just build the spaceship around my ex-wife. Gravity problem solved.

[@RealEngineering]

Hiiiiiiiiiiiiyo!

[@isaacjohnson8752]

Rim shot lolol

[@intheshitter]

lol'd hard

[@jamesbreidenbach5866]

That would mean that she is also attractive ;)

[@pele220]

Damn ... LOL

[@YoshisaurUnderscore]

My mind has been sufficiently blown. I always thought artificial gravity was just science fiction; I had no idea that it could actually be a thing!

[@maxemore]

Just physics

[@Stickman_Productions]

This effect happens in the spinning rides too or something like that

[@rc-pf1wq]

im really curious to what might happen if you throw a ball, will the spinning affect its trajectory? would it be minimal?

[@kudosbudo]

@@rc-pf1wq I'm more concerned about what happnes if you jump? Ever tied jumping on a bus or train? I sit like that where lanind is difficult or would you not notice?

[@SC-zq6cu]

@@rc-pf1wq Yup. The spin would definitely affect its trajectory. Its called the coriolis force and it is a real thing on earth itself. Snipers need to account for it when they are aiming at something sufficiently far off.

[@bladeog4285]

I’m gonna be honest the math in the description helped me more than a 30 minute lecture from my physics teacher

[@wandaflowers4727]

Same KZbin is my teacher

[@kirkjohnson9353]

Too bad there isn't already a large ball of rock rotating in an orbit around earth- we could build on THAT.

[@575drv]

Kirk, I own a lumberyard and an Island, but until I’ve built a Boat my Island retreat just isn’t going to happen.

[@jntaylor29]

@@575drv there are plenty of boats/rockets go to the Moon, funny how we can't seem to get back to where we already been

[@dhvanitdesai5359]

Now only if we had the ability to go to a huge rock near Earth 50 years ago

[@rap1df1r3]

You're right, there isn't. The Earth is flat and motionless.

[@TexMex421]

It is going to be difficult to move that large ball of rock away from the Earth, and if we did, the Earth would tend to miss it what with the loss of tides, etc.

[@markotark]

So, even with RADICALLY conservative (if that is a thing) estimates, the amount of money that was spent on bailing out Wall Street could have built us a one or maybe even more space stations like in 2001. Even considering some dire economic consequences, i'd be inclined to have stations instead of bonuses in the pockets of bankers...

[@intjonmiller]

You and me, both. Consider that NASA's entire operating budget is less than was spent annually on just air conditioning of offices and officer's quarters in the war in Iraq. Look it up. The scale is unbelievable and eye-opening.

[@Poctyk]

And ITER budget is less then people annually spend on IPhones. Let's stop wasting money on those silly things?

[@Poctyk]

>one or maybe even more space stations like in 2001. Why? I mean why building

[@TheGamingg33k]

USAs military budget is the largest compared to anyone in the world. I dont know what they fuk they are doing with all that money.

[@Derek_Gunn]

They are wasting it on the F-35 program ( $1.5 trillion so far). Almost enough to pay to lift Elysium's raw materials into orbit! See above at 3:37

[@MrDeaz]

I know it's a strange comparison, since it has many factors to look at. But imagine a country like USA used their military budget on science and space programs instead, they could have colonized Mars then

[@dawsonanderson9230]

MrDeaz yeah and we would have been nuked by now

[@dawsonanderson9230]

But I get what your saying that would be awesome

[@Nate3million]

Unfortuately Trump has also said he wants money put into exploring the rest of the solar system rather than colonizing mars, which sucks because i think we need to go expand because im afraid of what humanity is doing/will do to this planet if all of this war continues. Also imagine what the mars colonies would be like, no war, very little conflict, only progress, and lots of resources, heaven in my view

[@MrDeaz]

I could imagine that war on Earth will end when we find another planet to attack. Considering back in the early days, it was tribes against tribes, then cities, then countries, now big military alliances vs countries.

[@Nate3million]

MrDeaz Your right, we need an alien invasion or something similiar. Suddenly all of humanity would shit themselves and huddle together for survival

[@lifethrownoutofthewindow]

$1.6 trillion revolutionary tech : OMGOMG SO EXPENSIVE iraq's useless war : $2.4 trillion :/

[@flabbywall1780]

Fade war not really useless. Vietnam was

[@nolanmurphy1613]

Flabby Wall1 the US military won Vietnam, but the US congress lost it.

[@grantcarter3972]

So it would be double the cost of iraq? considering it was 5 trillion (rough estimate)

[@gaybroshevik4180]

@Dark Phoenix Islam is not the enemy. The Christian religion saying other Religions are the enemy is actually the fucking enemy.

[@gaybroshevik4180]

@Dark Phoenix the catholic church is the enemy, bro.

[@spartanbale1878]

Hey I know this came out 3 years ago but on Netflix there’s a show called Lost In Space and it has rotating circles like you said

[@spartanbale1878]

Naiyo Seam Why are you commenting that on my comment? and he didn’t say they were new

[@keymul]

Spacex may be able to make the spinning ship due to reusable ships and building it in space like the iss

[@tombaker8481]

Lost in Space is awful...they made all the men stupid and weak, they have some stupid "we can fight using our minds and not guns!"...and EVERY character is a drama queen.

[@spartanbale1878]

Tom Baker that’s the dumbest thing I’ve ever heard never speak to me again you jerk

[@tombaker8481]

@@spartanbale1878 LOL, you're a whiny little thing aren't you?...you can't handle another person's opinion?...do you cry when someone disagrees with you?...awww, poor baby. Lost in Space SUCKED, they emasculated every guy, they made the robot some god like being with no REAL purpose but to get in the way, Dr Smith is a JOKE of a character that can't hold a candle to either the 70's version, OR the 1998 film and, I'll repeat..."NO type of military or armed force to defend humans seeking a new home, heck, they deserved to not only be lost but to die off in the void...LOL...remember, you asked for this...I'll allow you the last word before muting you, I can't stand a weak, easily offended baby

[@emixiak]

My bike can't create its own gravity because it's two-tired.

[@bungusscrungus2523]

HA ha.... ha............... ha

[@justnatsuki6526]

I chuckled I hate my life

[@JohnSmith-eo5sp]

That's a good one :-)

[@duston1540]

Nice

[@edu5493]

thanka for that dude 😂

[@AdstarAPAD]

The cheaper option is to build your space ship the normal size and build a counter weight of the exact same weight. The you get a strong cable of lets say a kilometer in length and but the space ship on one end and the counter weight on the other end.. Straighten it out and then fire a rocket on both the Space ship and the counter weight in opposing rotational direction.. You now have your gravity for a fraction of the cost that of either space station featured in this video..

[@thothheartmaat2833]

or you stand on the platform and it rockets towards the destination with rockets on the bottom of where you're standing, pushing you "up" and pulling you "down"

[@AdstarAPAD]

Maathiu Ra Yin You would have to maintain the 1 G acceleration to the half way point and then turn the space ship around and decelerate with the same 1 G deceleration all the way to you get there.. What engine and fuel could sustain a 1 G acceleration over a long journey ? Not sure any such engine and fuel exists..

[@Leo1239150]

cool concept! But you'd need one hell of a cable :D

[@ljdean1956]

NASA proposed a similar plan for it's original 1970s space station concept. However, the reason there are no serious plans to develop artificial gravity spacecraft of any kind is cost. NASA Human Space Flight (HSF) is teetering on the verge of ending because the very best engineers NASA has to offer cannot crack the cost barrier. The private sector has yet to demonstrate they can crack it as well. We only have HSF of astronauts on board ISS who are transported via Russian Soyuz craft. When NASA ISS participation ends, then what? There's lots of talk about going to Mars or back to the moon but no concrete plans that can be seen unfolding the way Apollo did. NASA's budget is currently at 1960 levels as a percentage of fed spending. We won't have any very ambitious projects on that budget. It's the main reasons SLS/Orion is on such a glacial test schedule.

[@thothheartmaat2833]

+AdstarAPAD so you're saying artificial gravity requires acceleration?

[@wktodd]

it does not need to be a large diameter, it only needs to be long , i.e. two masses separated by a long cable spinning around their centre of mass

[@thomasini]

Exactly what I was thinking!

[@gacorley]

You save some material that way, but you are losing some comfort and security. Now the only way to get to the other side of the station is through microgravity. And if your tether gets hit by an asteroid, there is way to have a backup that will take the weight, and your living space flies off into space. With a continuous ring, you can walk the entire circumference, and you can have multiple spokes supporting the structure. Your design also means that you're not maximizing the livable area. Every bit of material you add to make a larger ring also gives you greater surface area in the gravity section. So, if you want to accommodate a lot of people, you'll want to build one large, continuous ring anyway. You just want to work out how much material you can get to build the largest ring possible, for capacity and comfort of inhabitants.

[@dougmc666]

Three masses works well, one in the center for zero-g and docking.

[@jacobstaten2366]

*twang* Goodbye Earth. Hello cold abyss.

[@talyn3932]

Bolo and hourglass habitats address this. They have drawbacks to them that Torus don't. Then the Torus also has drawbacks that an O'Neil Cylinder does not. Really, scaling up makes it more stable and less dependent on fine tuning. If you have a larger and more complex biosphere inside of it, it can handle disruptions easier. With all of these habitats, wobbles can damage or destroy them. that is another thing that mass addresses. However, the odds of an asteroid striking a cable are probably the same as an asteroid destroying your house.

[@gauravv3367]

0:15 so basicly laziness costs life in space.

[@EASYTIGER10]

Why do you need a complete ring? As you say, it's complicated and costly. Why not build something shaped like this > (======) or the beam on that beam engine shown at 5:26 - with a long central spoke for systems and storage and short curved pods for habitation at each end. Then just spin the whole thing to create gravity in the pods. You could always extend the end pods into bigger arcs as time and money allows.

[@thermophile2106]

EASYTIGER10 I agree. It doesn't even have to be semetrical. Put your people on one side, have a long cable, and put your supplies on the other. If one side is more massive, it will move in smaller circles, so both ends would have the same centripetal force.

[@snowthemegaabsol6819]

Rapidly crossing into varying gravitational forces like that can have adverse effects on the equilibrium

[@ironcito1101]

That is what Zubrin et al proposed in their Mars Direct plan, albeit on a small scale, of course. The ship at one end of a long tether, and the spent upper stage of the booster at the other end, rotating around each other. Artificial gravity (at least a fraction of Earth's) for the way to Mars, so the astronauts get there healthy and ready to go.

[@ObjectsInMotion]

This is where physics turns into mechanical engineering. The materials would have to be much stronger if the structure is unbalanced or unsymmetrical. A circle is just simply the most stable structure.

[@macjonte]

Have something looking quite like this: 8=====D~ and your home free. ^.^

[@drdeth2]

Some crazy tinfoil hat guy "Gravity? Gravity isn't real!"

[@bubbaole9036]

Tell them drdeth2 . They won't listen to me.

[@derbersdiscoveries5938]

ESD

[@damienboyo3788]

I skydive an i can asure you gravity IS real. What else could pull me back to earth at; 120mph, 193kph, 53.6m/s, 176f/s Or if you'd prefere 104.3knots. ??? Im pritty sure its grAVity... Or is it a cartoon???

[@TexMex421]

@@damienboyo3788 A bungie cord could pull you far faster than that.

[@davidpavel5017]

@@damienboyo3788 check out Vsauces video called which way is down

[@WormholeJim]

It's when watching vids like these, it really saddens me to think about how we spend as much as 95% of our total time and energy on either making little plastic-gadgets to sell to eachother, or new ways of killing eachother. Usually both. When it is too expensive building a spacestation, say, 700 meters across; building extraction-, processing- and launchfacilities on the moon; all those neat scifi-ish things that it is actually within our capabilities to do - it is because we *choose* it to be too expensive.

[@johnberry4540]

Yeah, the cost is not even that much. Heck, the Pentagon loses that much money all the time.

[@johnberry4540]

And that is pretending the best technology we have to get to space is spaceX and Rocketry, which honestly it isn't.

[@WormholeJim]

Well, I've seen the youtube vids and heard the talks, and while people like Steven Greer and things like his disclosure project are fascinating to the extreme, my standpoint is that the only thing Iknow with absolute certainty is that I don't know anything. So when thinking 'seriously' about humans in space, I put all that aside as, say, inspiration for if I feel like writing a scifi novel. Seriously, then, I think there are some interesting developements going on in our efforts to reach space in a permanent way, efforts that build directly on top of what makes most of world's populace tick, and the social structures that made us so: Entertainment. I've been following this dutch-based initiativ, MarsOne, that wants to put a permanently settled colony on Mars, and they want to fund it by making it into a reality-TV show. And they are having succes with this business model, having got more than adequate funding for their preliminary work and testing, and also been promised additional funding as conclusions lead to new tests and further on the construction of various earthside fascilities that serves spacebound purposes. It's even worded like this because they want to keep their options open for any nano-material revolutions that might be happening sometime soon. In the background they also got a lot of scientific interest going for them - obviously - for also, sort of incidentally - being in the process of creating a platform for absolutely groundbreaking scientific research. And not only in space-relevant hard thechs; physics, mathematics, astrology, but also soft sciences as sociology and antropology. Even completely new branches that might have enourmous impact on the already established ones, like exo-allsortsofology. It's nuts how much momentum they got, and best of all is that it could not have gotten any weirder if Douglas Adams himself had come up with it.

[@artaiosgreybark2162]

The thing is just that we don't need a station like that. It would serve no purpose other than very expensive and dangerous living space and labs.

[@N0xiety]

You know the problem isn't about our capability of doing it. We could also build a high speed vacuumed train tunnel between US and EU. Then why don't we just do that? Because there is just no need at the moment while planes can do the same thing for cheaper. There is no need to build factories on the moon while we can still obtain elements from earth alot cheaper or there is no need for a gigantic space station while we can do all the science we need in a smaller one. We also don't need a space station to live on as long as there is nothing wrong with earths atmosphere or we don't run out of living space on earth. What you say would only be possible if our society advances to a point that manufacturing of food, transportation, telecommunication, policing, medical care, and so on is handled by machines. In that society people would no longer need to perform manual labour or even work to maintain their basic lifestyles. Work would be available in order to obtain a sense of accomplishment in life and only those driven by curiosity or a sense of duty would persue it. Only in a society like this can we do what you describe. In our current society which is ruled by money we just can't pursue greatness, everything is bound to profit.

[@nathanleblanc5178]

The fact that it’s even possible is amazing

[@seamuscallaghan8851]

The cost would be a lot lower if we just mined, processed, and assembled the materials in space rather than trying to haul them up out of Earth's gravity well. I mean, setting up the infrastructure would be expensive, but it's a good investment. I'm excited for asteroid mining.

[@Private_Colceri]

It's cool, but it's like Satellite recycling, It might be a cost effective genius idea, but the mythical powers that be say "no" so, no. Seriously though, space is probably the biggest frontier for logic failures.

[@escraftTH]

Why not just use two pods attached to each other by a 200m long cable and spin the whole thing. No need for a ring.

[@felixbade2879]

Indeed! Ideally the cable would be a few kilometers long to make spinning slower than 1rpm. We could also use a dummy weight on the other end. Ot just very very long cable. Small dummy weight is probably the cheapest and lightest option

[@TheTancan99]

I could be wrong but I seem to remember something like this being done.... not with the intent of artificial gravity but at least tried....

[@swrdghcnqstdr]

how do you spin it without bending the cable or messing up your orbit

[@TheTancan99]

+William Herron I think you'd have to have two rockets on either end to fire at the same time to help keep the orbit stabilized...

[@TheBluMeeny]

Better yet, a super strong rod, so you wouldn't need to waste fuel on the rockets. Although a material that could provide such strength doesn't exist atm, but I could be wrong.

[@zanshibumi]

You don't need to build a circumference, just two small ships tied by a long thin structure.

[@enderyu]

Or maybe a single ship with a counterweight like one of those metallic asteroids ?

[@ohtych1004]

zanshibumi yeah but the two space shuttle has some gravity pulling the thing tubes closer until it snaps. NASA would need to make the tube extremely strong and that’s the big issue

[@Raz.C]

zanshibumi AT LAST!!! Someone else who gets it!

[@harrystranger]

Carbon Nanotubes...

[@MervynPartin]

zanshibumi- I do not know the country in which you live, so it may be unlikely that you have seen it, but a concept similar to your proposal was featured in the BBC tv series "Star Cops" (which aired on British television around 2004) where the International Space Police visited an American space station that used a module on an extended gantry to provide earth gravity.

[@kerbonaut2059]

>Starts the video on how centrifugal force will develop in a rotation frame of refrence OH YEAH

[@why8800]

ISRO(Indian Space Research Organisation) can take 1kg material to space under $500. (spacex $1600) Cost can be cut down to just $1.6 Trillion. Let's do it

[@kelvin3706]

500 usd + destroyed cargo

[@bubbaole9036]

I said no material is leaving this planet as long I am here. Period!

[@User-du7kf]

@@kelvin3706 ISRO has been very successful in recent times, though it hasn't reached the incredible feats like NASA and that's because of lack in funding. ISRO is much cheaper economically compared to other organizations. Period.

[@minibray]

Who’d you have to kill to get that username?

[@bubbaole9036]

@@minibray We don;t kill, we negotiate, we trade or we buy the name. That's what smart people do. satan and his students kills.

[@Allan_aka_RocKITEman]

FWIW: "Space Station V" - the "V" is the roman numeral "5". So it's "Space Station 5".

[@BrainUser1]

Not sure, aside lots of roman /greek (pagan)culture there is also a lot of jewish mysticism, V as W are numeric value of *6*

[@insertyourfeelingshere8106]

I think this misses the point of the video

[@BrainUser1]

@@insertyourfeelingshere8106 ​ You are for one ruff ride on YT, lots of comments miss thee Point, yours is one of the few.... Though GRAVITY was a Pulling force not pushing one (thats is Ether)? It is not CT hoax Advocates that deny centrifugal force :)

[@AngelLestat2]

first, you dont need something so big as the elysium to reduce the gradient effects of your feets and head.. 400m diameter disk is enough in that matter. You dont need a disk.. you can use just a tether with another habitat for counter weight, or you can use inflatable habitat and you launch them in sections to complete the ring. Your cost calculations are also pointless, launch cost will be reduce a lot in the comming years, and we will not need nothing of this until 30 years at least.

[@kelzuya]

He did qualify his calculations with "although costs will only go down in coming years". I don't think working out a solid figure with today's information is pointless. Bit harsh expecting him to calculate costs based on imagined figures from the future.

[@JackOfNothing]

AngelLestat2 What percent of force difference between a persons feet and head can they handle before becoming disorientated? What is the smallest radius for 2Gs of simulated gravity before it sickens occupants?

[@foobar2285]

AngelLestat2 yep and that's why NASA doesn't use it.

[@andyvasvari4874]

You can't simulate gravity everywhere. That is fiction.

[@andyvasvari4874]

?

[@JosifKalin]

@ 5:00 sorry, but I have to disagree. What we can find in the space is raw material, with unknown composition, that has to be processed. So we have to add some extra for bringing the material down to earth and processing, or for a processing plant working in space.

[@alfonso8582]

I'm sorry, but I'm afraid I can't let you do that.

[@skullofserpent5727]

ctrexrhino you forgot, dave

[@Robert-lb7jq]

Damn it, Slippy! Stop quoting the enemy!

[@miguelpereira9859]

ctrexrhino Where did ya get that idea?

[@Nemoticon]

Dais....ey.... Dai...sey..... giv...e.... me.... your.... an....swer..... doooooooooooo

[@juandiegoprado]

ctrexrhino Open the pod bay doors Hal!

[@CanadianPrepper]

Its not feasible because we cant "build Elysium"... I appreciate the appeals to pop culture but its really a meaningless comparison. It wouldnt have to be that big obviously and evoking it as an example is like a strawman on the idea itself, probably 1/50th the size and it would still be massive, so you can cut the 5 trillion figure into 100 billion. There could be some variable gravity strength schedule to mitigate the blood into feet effect. Video started great but went

[@alexx_tv2362]

Not only are you incomprehensible half the time. What’s remaining that is in correct English doesn’t make sense

[@CanadianPrepper]

@@alexx_tv2362 You're grammar is terrible

[@alexx_tv2362]

@@CanadianPrepper hahahahah the irony

[@pangaea5258]

@@alexx_tv2362 That may or may not have been a joke ;). But I get the point he's trying to make.

[@rphb5870]

Well I made some calculations, and we can have a space station with mars like gravity, with all parameters in the green if we have an inner ratio of 83 meters and an outer one of 100m. That gives us 17 meters in the green zone that translates into four floors. This will give us roughly 40 thousand square meters of interior space, if we utilised it at maximum capacity. But we should defidently have regions of our station where there would only be one floor, so we can get the full 17 meters to celling which is enough for full trees to grow thus allowing the astronauts a nice park to relax in

[@jaredj631]

The artificial gravity craft dose not need to be a circle. All you need to do is connect a conventional space craft to a long pole or tether to a counterweight. The counter weight could be an other conventional space craft or just use old satellite or fuel tanks. No sci-fi magic needed

[@redlion145]

The main problem with a bolo setup is that it only takes one micrometeoroid impacting that tether to send the two spacecraft hurtling in opposite directions, spiraling out of control. A solid structure would be preferable for long term habitation, both for durability and ease of maintenance. A bolo has a single point of failure that is just too glaringly obvious.

[@jaredj631]

+Irish Identity I agree a tube like structure would be nice so the People could go between the two units with out a space walk. Perhaps redundant tethers also for structural stability and reduced weight.

[@redlion145]

Have you read Seveneves by Neal Stephenson? Science fiction novel dealing with an apocalyptic event and the survival of humans by going into space.

[@jaredj631]

+Irish Identity no but it sounds awesome I'm going to look it up.

[@micahgilbertcubing5911]

A circle 2ould also be better for long-term travel because the whole point of simulating gravity is to allow the muscles to exercise. It would be much easier to have a torus,like in Seveneves, because of how easy it would be to walk

[@vitorneves3054]

For more immediate purposes, it would not be better to simulate a smaller gravitational force (about 3.5 m/s) as this would allow for smaller and cheaper stations. This gravity is enough for astronauts to stay healthy and walk without problems and even leave the "ring" for the microgravity laboratories. Obviously this would only work on medium orbit, high orbit and interplanetary ships. Correct me if I'm wrong, I just thought this.

[@SokarEntertainment]

When I real some of the top comments on this channel, I get the feeling there aren't very many action engineers or physicists watching. Love the channel though!

[@kennethstodder1237]

imagine being a construction worker in space, cat talking aliens and shit.

[@caddy272]

Kenneth Stodder The term is is "cat calling".

[@vladdy9739]

why not make real gravity, and just put some boxes and tape it to the bottom of the station?

[@user-yw6ee4cg4g]

Vlad The Inhaler Do you understand how gravity works?

[@vladdy9739]

#InThe Butt yeah the more mass the more your pulled to it , so if there's more mass at the bottom of the station, the more your pulled towards it, so if they store their stuff on the bottom of the station they can stand

[@user-yw6ee4cg4g]

Vlad The Inhaler But you can't fit that amount of mass on à space station

[@vladdy9739]

#InThe Butt yeah you can it's called tape

[@Oliver-bn7jt]

lol the boxes would do nothing you would need like septillions of boxes to even create a tiny bit of gravity

[@bigcat5348]

Why does it need to be a ring? You could just have two or more "spokes" with habitation modules on the ends.

[@العقيدمعمرالقذافي-ح4ف]

for structural integrity

[@ghostrider6986]

Petition for us government to build this

[@astrotecn]

It seems the principal thing holding us back from space is gravity.

[@rzvendramini]

Why do not bond two modules using a steel cable? This way you can bond two small modules but the structure itself will have a huge diameter limited only by the steel cable lenght.

[@kylebreedlove6112]

Zubner's Mars Plan uses this method. There would be a crew compartment and a storage module connected by a long cable spinning around a center of mass.

[@theteddychannel8529]

pretty clever

[@theninearemine8499]

Cables snap, and if the linking cable were to snap the two modules would be slung off into outer space in opposite directions making rescue impossible because the main ship which is traveling forward would not be able to change direction to retrieve the modules. Think of it like if you were traveling in a car and something you were holding out the window fell, the car would continue it's forward motion and the fallen item would be left behind. In a car you can slow down and back up and maybe find the item because gravity stopped it and it's laying on the ground somewhere. But in space the two modules would continue to travel away from you because there is no friction to slow them down.

[@theninearemine8499]

I forgot to mention the properties of metal work differently in space then on Earth. The repeated heating and cooling of the metal in the cable would make it brittle... almost insuring eventual failure. Especially if it's under tension as both modules are pulling on it through centrifugal force. This is why you always see the wheel spokes structure used in these designs. Because if 1 section fails the rest can bare the load... the spokes also distribute load evenly around the entire circumference of the circle helping the whole thing to be much stronger then if you just had two modules at opposite ends

[@jacobstaten2366]

*twang* Goodbye Earth. Hello cold abyss.

[@aristocrazy6192]

For those wondering, this video was done well before the spaceX starship program. So building this is definitely possible with starship launching cost and weight it can catry

[@Beanskiiii]

It’s never going to be built. There isn’t enough aluminum on earth to build it and space mining isn’t a thing because the cost of space mining outweighs the profits gained from it.

[@bidav2114]

Starship these days, kaboom

[@c.l.h.bokhorst6687]

A giant fidget spinner!!!

[@johannaromero2554]

👏N👏E👏P👏H👏E👏W👏

[@Duricas]

Maybe if you have a simple, quaint mind.

[@ihavecookies.9955]

Seriously.............?😂

[@pulyps20sf]

Stfu

[@aneutronicfusion9434]

But centrifugal force *isn't* real.That is just an oversimplification that ignores the real forces that are in play that end up with the *perception* of centrifugal force. If you picture a space station that you have spun to create this artificial gravity environment, and you are standing in it. If it suddenly disappears, what happens? Do you fly directly away from the center of the space station, as centrifugal force would suggest would happen? No, you don't. You would fly along a vector that is tangential to the circle. Centripetal force is what holds you in the circle, and without a structure to exert that force, your inertia takes over. The reason the acceleration can be said to be in "g", is because the Earth exerts *acceleration* on you while you are on it, NOT force. Not bashing you or your video, just trying to put some knowledge out there.

[@akshaysinha2711]

Force = mass x acceleration. You = mass, Earth = applies acceleration on you. Hence, it applies a force on your body.

[@raginmadmangonecrazy]

Earth applies a centripetal force on you're body, there still is no such thing as an actual centrifugal force, what people generally perceive as a centrifugal force is really just an objects inertia resisting the centripetal acceleration. If there were 2 equal and opposite forces acting on an object during circular motion they would cancel out and the object would always fly in a straight line. Newtons 3rd law pair to the centripetal force from gravity on earth pulling you down isn't an equal centrifugal force pushing you up, the 3rd law pair is the gravitational force your body exerts on the earth.

[@sequoiahughes8536]

I'm sorry Aneutronic Fusion, but you are confused. Centripetal force and centrifugal force describe two different things, and you are not using the word correctly while the video most certainly is. Centripetal and centrifugal forces--while not true fundamental forces like the strong, weak, & electromagnetic--are concise and convenient ways to describe different phenomena. Centripetal force is inward-seeking, like gravity. Centrifugal force is outward-seeking, like what you experience inside the carnival ride Gravitron, or like the inside of a centrifuge. Arthur C. Clarke's (if i remember correctly) mnemonic to remember the difference: Centrifugal = centrifuge = pulled outward Centripetal = petals like a daisy flower = pulled inward Another example of centripetal force is the tension in a string if you were to secure string to a rock and then swing it around you; the rock doesn't fly away because of the strength of the string--its tension--which you may correctly call centripetal force. No phrase conveys the phenomenon displayed in the video more concisely or clearly than *centrifugal*, and really: you're not gonna have many opportunities to intelligently use the word centripetal in a sentence, unless it's to tell someone that they're using the word centripetal wrong.

[@ricomajestic]

@@sequoiahughes8536 You are clueless about physics! Centrifugal forces don't exist! There are no outward forces when moving in circular motion inside of a cylinder.

[@sequoiahughes8536]

@@ricomajestic I'm nobody. Talk to a physicist.

[@mathiaskjeldgaardpetersen5926]

Hi Real Engineering, so if you jump in a centrifugal "artificial gravity" what would make you come down again?

[@RealEngineering]

The same thing that made you go down in the first place, inertia.

[@mathiaskjeldgaardpetersen5926]

okay, so if I float in orbit and someone put a cenfrifuge around me ( with the same trajectory so there is no contact ) I would somehow be attracted to the sides of the centrifuge? ( if the jump negates the inertia )

[@RealEngineering]

No, if you somehow magically appeared inside it, you would float above it. That isn't going to happen though, you will either be inside it while it accelerates or you will climb down from the center of rotation. The structure will need to transfer inertia to you.

[@mathiaskjeldgaardpetersen5926]

oh yea that is logical but it sounds to be a quite tricky system in practice if you would treat it like a normal space station. Love the video BTW. kudos

[@robp1458]

+Mathias Petersen. is this in a vacuum or air? it would make a difference

[@fabianoperes2155]

Really nice video. Subscribed! Supose it would be possible to create a RingWorld with 8.000 km ?(Yes, Bigger than Earth) radious, how fast would it need to spin to simulate Earth gravity?

[@spaceflightexplosionstutor4167]

If you built it with radius somewhere between 75 000 - 85 000 km radius (I don’t now how to calculate certain number) , it would need to spin once a day, soo you can connect it with space elevators. Speed would be between 6 and 7 km/s

[@TheAkashicTraveller]

So basically pretty much anything is possible when you have 500,000 people who each have more than 10,000,000$ contributing.

[@secularmonk5176]

This is a variation on the Musk strategy to colonize Mars (as outlined by waitbutwhy): make a travel pass cheap enough that there are one million people willing to pay for a one-way trip.

[@arjensmit6074]

common good ? Its not in my interest to send a bunch of people into space (or myself for that matter). It is however in my interest to send robots into space who mine the asteroids and/or planets, transform the resources into usable products and send those to earth for us to use. That way we can stop destroying and depleting the earth and make it a paradise with all the dirty manufacturing stuff happening in space. And then, in time, the robot factory complex in space can grow and ultimately prepare other planets for us to inhabit. I expect the space mining to start in this century, to mature in the next and 2 or 3 centuries down the line i suppose we can start inhabiting other planets. We dont need to make huge investments for non-sustainable projects now. If we start doing what is interesting for us now (space mining), soon there will be an infrastructure that allows us to colonize planets in a more sustainable way. Not by having many people pay for sending a few people, but by having self replicating robots basically do everything for free while we sit on our asses and just worry about keeping control of the AI instead of it controlling us.

[@sermerlin1]

it's not in your interest to send a bunch of people into space? Then what the fuck is all bellow you wrote? Point is space travel. Traveling to another planets. Seeing new unseen shit. Spreading ourselves among the universe meeting new people along the way (aliens)... BUT assholes rather chose to spend money on wars.

[@nexusoflife]

Anything is possible for humans when a monetary system and the ego are out of the way.

[@ark_ryl9384]

So many communists ITT.

[@cartossin]

You could also have two modules connected by a long truss or cable then rotate the whole system. This way you could have large radius w/o much material.

[@Cristian-vl8pg]

I just showed this video to my physics professor. He said almost everything you said about centrifugal force was false.

[@michielm5120]

What is wrong about his explanation?

[@jpcrafton69]

@@michielm5120 He explained that changing perception (reframing the point of reference) changes the forces involved. That's simple not possible, and does not work. The forces and the causes of those forces do not change based on the frame of reference. Nothing is pushing you down, regardless of your perception. Instead, your momentum is being continually resisted and redirected by the "floor" of the rotational object. That's classic centripetal force.

[@squeakybunny2776]

@@jpcrafton69 there is no one absolutely right perception. Someone from out side would say it's momentum and a centripetal force but to the person inside the system the centeifugal force is entirely real. The perception of the person in the rotating reference frame isn't wrong or less right/accurate. Physics is just a model of the real world. The model for non rotating reference frames isn't better or more right than the model for rotating reference frames

[@CullenMorris97]

Centrifugal force is absolutely fake. The reference frame doesn’t matter here, the bottom line is the guy is always spinning around in a circle meaning he always has an acceleration towards the center of the circle meaning that the centripetal force pulling in is NOT balanced out. Centrifugal force is an “inertial force” which essentially means it’s a phenomenon caused by a bodies desire to stay in motion and an unbalanced external force pushing against it. But and inertial force is not a force, it’s more like an illusion

[@squeakybunny2776]

@@CullenMorris97 I think everyone here knows what it is and that's it is a fictious force, but none the less, for the person in a rotating reference frame, it's real. You say the bottom line is that the guy is always going round in circles, but that's only in a non rotating reference frame. In a rotating reference frame he is standing still. There is no right answer for if he is going round in circles or not. It's same as with speed. If I'm on my bycicle doing 15 km/h, how fast am I going? There is no absolute right answer. Sure, I'm doing 15 km/h with respect to earth. But why would earth be the best / only reference.

[@swampdonkey1567]

Centrifugal force is crazy there is a strapless spinning ride that spins you and you stick to walk at worlds of fun in KC,MO.

[@kudosbudo]

Se but that only works because you accelerate up to teh correct speed. What happens if you get stopped dead in a centrfugal spacestation? Do you just start ping ponging around? if theres no outside gravity pulling on you to hold you in position and you jump in a space station, while you would be carrie dforwards it would akin to jumping on a moving vehicle, landing would be difficult. And thus walking aorund should be difficult too. Even a smooth moving plate on teh end of a pole would feel slightly off.

[@jeetvaishnav1825]

Whoever says centrifugal gravity is not possible is an idiot and have clearly never taken a basic Physics course in school. When an objects spins, centripetal acceleration acts on the objects and the displacement of that acceleration is towards the center of the path the object travels. Go fast enough to have your acceleration 9.8 m/s^2 and boom, you have replicated "gravity"

[@semseddincolak6217]

Its ShonenLad

[@Emppu_T.]

Newtons forces acting on said thing basically?

[@corneeey]

As you said: It's centripetal acceleration that creates the "gravity". So people who say that centrifugal gravity isn't possible probably just mean that there is no such thing as centrifugal gravity but centripetal gravity. I definitly agree that it's stupid for people to argue like that but it's right in a way

[@chewtag]

Lol just go to any county fair, the ride goes by many names, but in it you lay on the wall and it starts spinning fast and the walls start to move up and down and you can feel the force keeping you against the wall

[@AdrianSanchez-ub3tb]

It's not a force it is normal acceleration! But I understand the confusion.

[@Agedude]

What if we were to trap an asteroid and accelerate its rotation so that a tunnel just under the surface of the asteroid would have "gravity" similar to Earth? You wouldn't be able to stand on the exterior of the asteroid, but you could dock with it by matching the rotation speed and using some kind of tether.

[@BigBoss-ps6vk]

Call me stupid, but I watched so many sci fi movie I thought artificial gravity is real...

[@reizayin]

K, stupid..

[@BigBoss-ps6vk]

Thentai :(

[@uchennamaduno5799]

It's called "Sci-Fi," or "Science Fiction" for a reason..

[@xunk16]

In science-fiction, artificial gravity is a generic correction expressed by the lack of budget. If the budget is lower, then the gravity will be closer to earth or "stronger". But with a decent budget, you can have more realistic sci-fi nowadays. Exemple : The Expanse, or Gravity. In "The Expanse" they treat gravity as it should be in space, different planets or asteroids have different gravity, changing everything to the liquid falling in your glass. Sometimes, the constant acceleration of ships will be sufficient to create momentary gravity which is lost when the ship is stopped, altered when it turns, or diminish when it slows. "Gravity" uses a gritty realism to depict a plausible accident in space in our time and around the earth. It very much illustrates it's namesake in an hour or so action sequence. "Sidonia no Kishi" also makes uses of space and gravity as a setting for many convincing mecha battles. (It also focus on the ridiculous range of fire and differing accelerations problems you may encounter in space.) So yeah, sci-fi is not dead, but if the 50s-70s era beleived in a magic artificial gravity, most serious writers now know it is a plot device for budget failings. It doesn't get Babylon 5 less brilliant on other points, but then... if you had to fail every sci-fi show for it's depiction of Gravity, you'd miss all the good ones. And again you have all the Star Wars and Firefly trying to explain artificial gravity as a feild phenomena with serious thinking. So maybe all isn't lost. Maybe someday... when a nuclear fusion generator will be safe, abordable and smaller than a car engine.

[@3gunslingers]

+xunk16 apart from the rest of your rather good comment: "you can have more realistic sci-fi nowadays [like]... Gravity." Nice joke xD

[@ColeDedhand]

Can we create artificial gravity? Nope. But we can create real gravity.

[@swagbaba69]

How ? We can't gravity untill we don't know the raw material for example we can make water with raw material hydrogen and Oxygen like that we need raw material

[@Qwerasd]

Hi, Real Engineering, I have a question for you. Is the centrifugal governer spinning clockwise or counterclockwise?

[@RealEngineering]

Neither, it's a 2D animation that I forgot to apply scale to. Still learning this animation stuff.

[@Qwerasd]

Wow! I didn't think you'd reply. I just found your channel recently and have really enjoyed the videos of yours that I've watched. The animations look fantastic by the way.

[@TheIceThorn]

It doesn't matter. The fact that you can't even tell the difference should tell you something about relativity of that kind of things :)

[@persona9917]

The only problem is centrifugal force doesn't work in high orbit.Centrifugal force requires at least some Gravity in order to work.

[@selflessdeath8119]

I don't know how you got that idea, but no, centrifugal force is a force separate from gravity. You do not need gravity for it to work.

[@thomasarmer6657]

Using dwarves would reduce the speed effect issue.

[@Troyster94806]

No, it does NOT have to be a huge structure like 2001! It can be something as simple as space capsules tethered together with a long cable! Good engines don't talk about why something is impossible, but instead ponder what it might take to make it possible.

[@Dorumin]

Troy Carpenter good engines don't talk at all

[@ian.piepenbrock]

I believe Robert Zubrin proposed something like that. Two capsules tethered together with a cable on their way to Mars.

[@kudosbudo]

Question for you. If you set up a artifical gravity ring and spin it up to speed and its sides were open, if you moved from outside the ring into the rings cavity/walkway without touching anything would you be sucked down to the floor or merely float through the gaps?

[@Disthron]

This makes me wonder about the system they used in 'The Martian'. Where rather than having full wheels they only had 2 wings, each with a part of a circle that seem to balance each other out.

[@braindead_boi]

0:14 , look! a AG ring system comes over the horizon!

[@eyesrajones]

You're favorite invention is where the term "Balls to the wall." comes from.

[@YourselfAndEye]

Bobby Jones Jay Leno taught me that lol.

[@eyesrajones]

T Abel I saw that video as well. Jay Leno's Steam engine was awesome. I completely forgot about that until you mentioned it.

[@sparkypmb]

I'm slightly disappointed to know that although I guess my balls are relieved...

[@christopherhall5361]

"Balls to the wall" is a term coined to describe Chuck Norris walking into a building smaller than an aircraft hanger

[@J-Rat871]

What does that term mean I don't really feel like looking it up because I might find something weird

[@alexl7213]

this is possible to build with a modular concept. Pretty much like oversized legos - the idea is to create multipurpose modules that can be sent into space, and in space, attached to each other, with interior tech added as required for each specific function. The ring would start with core modules installed, two tethers and 2 bigger sections at each end. Rotation would start then, to ensure gravity in the outer sections. Then more modules would be added to the outer sections, with more tethers as required, until a whole ring was formed.

[@Qusin111]

at 1:36 what they do not explain is that he is in "effect" walking up hill (in the centrifuge) the whole time

[@Riiisuu]

Question should be “can we simulate gravity”.

[@vibbie2494]

Reece still wouldn’t hv it actually

[@joseinfante5054]

Yes, but not as this idiot describes it is ridiculous and will never be tried. Gravity doesn’t exist and you’re not pull to earth, you’re pushed to earth by the AETHER, but this is a lot of sand for your pickup truck, read the German Patent SCHAPPELLER DEVISE.

[@Riiisuu]

José Infante no thanks bro I don’t want to lower my iq

[@SparkyClarke]

José Infante get your head out of the clouds or should I say the Aether and come down to reality. Gravity has been proven already, it is fact and whether you choose to believe it or not is up to you.

[@joseinfante5054]

@@SparkyClarke Where's YOUR proof? Like all the tests of the damn physicists, in a 100 mm plastic disc ..!

[@nemonomen3340]

If the force of gravity is greater at your feet than at your head, that doesn't mean more blood will go to your feet. Gravity is always pulling blood down your body and a lessened degree of it isn't going to increase the pull.

[@tomwhone9804]

Jarrett, at the surface of the Earth, the differential is small and we've evolved to handle it. On a small, rotating station, the differential would be significant and enough to cause problems described in the video. Fighter pilots for example have to tense the muscles in their lower body when making high speed turns to keep the blood from going to their feet and passing out.

[@robertblain6740]

It’s a matter of understanding the definitions of centrifugal and centripetal. Our schools have failed.

[@robertblain6740]

One thing is certain gravity is not the force working to create artificial gravity. Consider the attraction mass has does not require spinning, think on it

[@sailor-rick]

I wrote a sci-fi story in which a small asteroid mining company simulated gravity by attaching opposing cables and pods to a heavy, spinning iron-ore asteroid. Since the asteroid was already spinning, no fuel was needed to spin it up to speed. The length of the cables was adjusted by the pods' electric winches to balance and calibrate the forces of the whole contraption. As I recall, it only produced the equivalent of one-tenth gravity so the cables didn't have to be super long and, therefore, didn't have to be composed of some fictional super-fiber. The pods had to be relatively lightweight, but parallel cables could be added if more pods (or weight) were added, two at a time of course. Obviously it could be done without the asteroid just by attaching the two pods together. But, by adding the asteroid in between, the cables can be much shorter. Too, the central mass creates a flywheel effect, which is more stable. Lastly, it was an asteroid mining operation so they kind'a wanted the asteroid. I ignored some potential problems, like the effect of solar wind, nearby gravitational forces, thermal outgassing of the asteroid, and the effect of movements of the occupants, any of which could slowly create an oscillation in the cables. Jumping up and down, for instance, would cause a tiny bouncing oscillation effect in the cables. It should cancel itself out in short order, but it would be troublesome if it were allowed to accumulate, but could be mitigated by well timed winch adjustments to the cables. So how did the pods attach themselves to the spinning asteroid, in the first place? Tangentially, of course, and simultaneously, with one on the opposite side as the other on a reciprocal heading.

[@TheNecronons]

if military funds were put to good use.....

[@97GoldDust]

it is being put to good use.

[@redragon9588]

Cbreezy yes, to kill peoples :D

[@budmil324]

No, to protect from killing people.

[@ashtonreason3444]

Cbreezy no its not

[@theteddychannel8529]

to protect a nation of wannabe soldiers that don't respect the law

[@ThePaintballgun]

What are those things hanging off that dude's legs? The guy walking around the loop...

[@swrdghcnqstdr]

to cancel out earths gravity. this artificial gravity is designed for space, so they need other stuff for it to work when there already is gravity

[@ThePaintballgun]

William Herron riiiiiight Thanks

[@rubikmonat6589]

he's hanging by wires on his side. Kinda like a hollywood ninja movie. You're looking down from above and the spinning drum is flat on the ground.

[@lajoswinkler]

It's simulating weightlessness in a 2D and ignores the depth.

[@angleofelevation8759]

Cause its not real gravity, its simulated gravity by just duplicating centrifugal force - if he stops moving -he's screwed. Artificial gravity is just fantasy thinking, because they can't even explain what gravity is. It's funny how they refer to space as having microgravity now - what a joke.

[@mrfawlty6046]

As an A level student many years ago, I remember the physics teacher saying ‘there is no such thing as centrifugal force, it is actually centripetal force’.

[@TexMex421]

The words don't seem to effect the outcome though. What difference does it make what you call it?

[@AndrewBlucher]

Centripetal force is what makes you move in a circle. Centrifugal force is what you feel. So they are opposite each other.

[@zachb9440]

@@TexMex421This is late as hell but it does matter. Centrifugal (does not exist, apparent because of the latter) and centripetal (certainly exists) are two different concepts (both are hard to explain in words in this comment).

[@zachb9440]

@@TexMex421 Centrifugal force is not really it's own force, but rather, it is the apparent effect of a normal force. Centripetal is the force that accelerates a mass on a rotating body outward.

[@TexMex421]

@@zachb9440 Saying it DOES matter what name you call the force reminds me of the people who "don't believe in gravity". They may not believe, but that also don't float away. If I were spinning a hamster in a sling over my head, but then said the force imparted by the string was named Steven, and the outward force perceived by the hamster was Brenda, how would things change? The Hamster is named Gregory Fatcheeks btw.

[@meadmaker4525]

The other large problem, not mentioned in the video, is that you need a fixed point, a source of leverage, around which to create that centrifugal spin. All of the spinning objects shown in the video are attached to something at the middle, allowing the outer structure to spin. In space, there would be no point of leverage around which to spin. Even if you put 1000 rockets around the perimeter, all facing and firing in the same direction, you wouldn't be able to control the oscillation in a single plane, which would be needed to keep it stable, and the structure would likely rip itself apart from the massive torsion created by the uncontrolled oscillation. If you could somehow overcome all of these issues, then centrifugal force could absolutely create the kind of artificial gravity in space that was proposed in the video. Unfortunately, I have yet to see or hear a good solution for the aformentioned problems, so it remains a largely moot point.

[@samr.england613]

Damn! Another effing technical hurdle! I wonder what Gerard O'Neil and other physicists would say about it?

[@michalfaraday8135]

The "brilliant" designers of Elysium also left the station open to space so not exactly the best example.

[@praveenneevarp4822]

Michal Faraday but the station due to it's enormous size would actually be able to retain it's atmosphere, search for "bishop ring" station

[@michalfaraday8135]

Nope, the barriers on the sides go maybe one or two hundred meters only. The air would be gone in minutes or even seconds.

[@praveenneevarp4822]

How tall due you think the wall is supposed to be blogs.scientificamerican.com/overthinking-it/how-elysium-is-a-carnival-ride-and-why-its-atmosphere-is-a-bucket-of-water/

[@michalfaraday8135]

Oh, that is a nice article :-) Correct me if I´m wrong, but I think it works like this: The centrifugal force keeps the air from going UP, but there is nothing stopping it from going LEFT or RIGHT - that´s why you need the walls. In the Bishop station the proposed walls were 200 km - as high as the atmosphere. So imagine the wall goes up only 200m. That means at 200 meters your air immediately escapes to left or right, because there is nothing stopping it from doing so. That means your atmosphere is only 200m high. Even if the air kept the original density, it would never generate enough pressure for humans to survive. But of course the air would not keep the original density because a gas wants to diffuse. So with vacuum at 200m most of the air bellow would be sucked out. I guess the artificial gravity would keep some from escaping, but no way we could live there.

[@michalfaraday8135]

Nothing happens instantly, it would take from seconds to minutes. And no, some air molecules would remain, because after a while the density gradient would be too low. Not enough air for life of course. Also FYI atmospheric pressure is caused by gravity.

[@emils7054]

All I can think about is The Gravity Chamber in DBZ...our power level, next we need senzu beans

[@joseinfante5054]

Gravity doesn’t exist and you’re not pull to earth, you’re pushed to earth by the AETHER, but this is a lot of sand for your pickup truck, read the German Patent SCHAPPELLER DEVISE.

[@joseinfante5054]

@Ayob Aref You tell me, this is not the issue here the topic here is bull shit gravity and antigravity without physical proof. And you didn't bother to read and study Karl Schappeller Devise's patent, so why am I going to bother teaching rogues.

[@higorss]

@@joseinfante5054 bruh

[@henryjiang9664]

It would cost 1/100 of the US debt. :/

[@redragon9588]

Kim Boom Joong you are from chinese, lol

[@redragon9588]

Kim Boom Joong not even near, Im from Lithuania

[@jhrch4389]

Two hundred BILLION? The I.S.S is estimated to cost $150 000 000 000

[@cjshakes]

I know this video is old but you should do a video on artificial gravitiy in a rod. Essenstially, it'd be a spacecraft shaped as a long tube (which for the most part they are anyway). The tube would then be spun after reaching its desired orbit or perhaps after doing its last burn sending it to Mars. At the tips of the tube would be 1 G where the astronauts would sleep and exercise to maximize the benefits. This removes the need for a massive space station to avoid differential acceleration. Also, it is in general a much more resource efficient method to achieve artificial gravity.

[@joseignaciohileradorna5122]

what do you mean "get into orbit"? It would be built in orbit

[@smeg7ds]

Yeah but you have to get the materials required to build it in space, so yes you do need to get it to orbit.

[@joseignaciohileradorna5122]

Sekrit Dokuments Meteors are rich in building resources

[@Blockbuster2033]

Sow how many meteors do you have that would supply that amount of mass flying by the earth so close and so slow that you could capture them? ah yeah... none

[@jpetras16]

Ok cool! You get on that.

[@joseignaciohileradorna5122]

Blockbuster2033 theres actually a lot like that

[@gamingroom2541]

1:52 SpaceX : Hold my beer.

[@fastfiddler1625]

Ironically, this is crushing my dreams.

[@wulphstein]

Abstract Use a laser to split a laser beam into two sets of photons, p1 and p2, that are connected by a special kind of hypothetical entanglement called a thread. A thread is a proxy for a small piece of spacetime. Use centrifuges to redshift p1 photons, blueshift p2 photons. The idea is to induce a time dilation across the thread. Since it’s a piece of spacetime, then it should acquire a length contraction as well, which is qualitatively like a curvature. The output of a laser beam would be a curvature beam. A curvature beam would act like a tractor beam.

[@gowdsake7103]

Dump a couple of trillion tons of gravel into space, wait a few million years job done !

[@rap1df1r3]

Nope, it's not. "Space" is a violation of multiple laws of nature. You can't have gas pressure without a container, therefore Earth is a closed system that we can't ever leave. Also, you're presupposing gravity which is just an unusually bad theory.

[@gowdsake7103]

@@rap1df1r3 Dont be such a fucking knob end. What pressure does mr twat think is next to space ? Has the fucking idiot heard of a PRESSURE GRADIENT .

[@a.q.2330]

@@rap1df1r3 are you another one of these religioustards?

[@lordfarquar9215]

I knew this was possible as a child way before it became popular. You ever come across the carnival ride that looked like a diamond or a ufo and it spinned really fast and held you against the wall. (I came across it in America.) After it sped up and when it started slowing down you could walk on the walls for a short amount of time.

[@flamingpi2245]

I’ve been in one of those Except you just got strapped in and since there isn’t any outside frame of reference it just feels like superstrong sideways gravity

[@bobbygirl5092]

The USA spent more trillions of dollars on wars. The money is there. Material would be the issue.

[@avid0g]

So if we connect two Starships on a tether so the habitation decks are 684 meters apart and accelerate to one RPM, then we get Mars surface gravity. 684 m at one rev per 60 sec. Or 1000 m at one rev per 72.5 sec. Or 1789 m at one rev per 97 sec. To get Earth surface gravity, we could lengthen the cable to 1789 meters between decks and accelerate to 1 RPM. Or 1000 meters at 1.338 RPM Or 447.28 meters at 2 RPM. Or 111.82 meters at 4 RPM. Starship has several deck levels, so the slower RPM and longer tether is preferred to keep the gravity more similar between decks. Connecting the ships together at the tail ends may reduce tether stress because the heavy engines and partially filled tanks would be closer together. Certainly, the tethers would be shorter.

[@Jollyprez]

Title is misnomer - not creating artificial gravity, merely simulating it.

[@SteveSmith-ze5mw]

Simulations are artificial.....

[@samrichardson630]

Not quite. Artificial means "human-made" while simulation means "a false show." So while simulated gravity is artificial, it's not artificial gravity. Artificial gravity would be indistinguishable from natural gravity, whereas this sort of simulated gravity could be easily distinguished by anyone running in the wheel (they'd get noticeably heavier going one way and lighter going the other). edit: this is also why the author of the video is wrong to say that the force is centrifugal-- it's only centripetal, because a true centrifugal force would allow for a fair game of table tennis in the space wheel.

[@6Twisted]

Given that the centrifugal force you feel is tied to your speed, would moving with/against the ships rotation not cause issues?

[@albertqin3944]

It's tied to the wheels speed

[@6Twisted]

Albert Qin No, it's tied to your speed. Say the wheel was rotating at 10km/h and you ran 10km/h in the opposite direction, you'd lose the centrifugal force.

[@christopherphoenix7421]

Yes, you are exactly correct, you would grow heavier if you ran in the same direction as the ship's rotation and you would grow lighter if you ran against the ship's rotation. Exactly how much will depend on your speed relative to the rim's rotational speed. I'm not sure how pronounced this effect will be, so I intend to do the math for it when I have some spare time.

[@teodorjovanovski9802]

Only if you'd accelerate. Not if you move with a constant speed or get caught in freefall.

[@christopherphoenix7421]

Teodor Jovanovski Wrong, moving at a constant speed will change your weight if you move spinwards or counterspinwards. Think about it, the force you feel results from the centripetal force of the floor holding you in a curved path, while your body wants to fly off in a straight line due to inertia. If you are moving spinwards faster, than that centripetal force is apply more force to hold you in that curved path, and you feel heavier. If you move against the spin you are moving slower and the force you feel reduces. Basically, you weight depends on the speed with which you rotate around the axis of rotation, and if you speed that up or slow it down the force you feel changes.

[@mmnissanzroadster9]

1.65 trillion isn't much, compared to the US's current national debt....

[@comancess4639]

So you’re telling me that we could build a whole ass Elysium if we just got our shit together

[@eozcelik42]

Astroid mining + 3-D Printing

[@AobatrozFilms]

3D printers will conquer the galaxy

[@IroAppe]

Have you thought of (at least) two capsules connected by a long enough cable, spinning around the center axis? The center could also be a station module. One big issue also is the coriolis (force). That solution with a long enough cable would solve that problem, or at least greatly minimize it. You would have two gravity habitats and a zero gravity lab in the station, for a comperatively low cost compared to a full ring of metal.

[@kingali1606]

That's actually a great idea, that way we'd have gravity habitats for long-term living, and a microgravity lab for research purposes

[@Agedude]

The biggest downside is probably the fact that you would not be able to easily or practically travel between the modules. In addition, you would have the trouble of changing weight. Any time you bring new passengers or supplies, or when passengers leave one module or send garbage back to Earth, the center of mass of the whole station would change and thus the axis of rotation. On the same idea though, you could just make a long, straight station and have it rotate upon its long axis, where the apparent "gravity" at both ends of the station is equivalent to Earth and gradually fades as you climb to the center. That would make it easy to manually or automatically adjust the balance of weight on each end, and the stiffness of such a chassis would mean slight changes to the center of mass would be less of a problem. It still leaves us with very little usable full-gravity space, and it could be disorienting to climb from one end to the center and back down again as opposed to just walking to the other end of the station as one could in a ring.

[@IroAppe]

@@Agedude Great thoughts. Yes, a straight station would have those advantages, and you could still make the 0G lab larger along the rotation axis, and the same with the two 1G capsules on the end, but for the amount of steel and material you can't really much use all the in-between space. You probably could minimize that space with just tubes that are smaller in size connecting the larger modules. Still, it needs ventilation and heating for the astronauts. The disorientation would not be a problem I believe. I would already by amazed to feel that gradual change to 0G, then turn around and float/climb down until it catches you again.

[@franksolario1842]

You don't want to do that for two reasons. 1) Both capsules would have to have exactly the same mass, otherwise the center would wobble back and forth. Any movement between capsules would unbalance the system. You could pump water back and forth, or slide a counterweight, but that just complicates the entire structure. 2) But the main reason not to have anything at the center is the Dzhanibekov effect. The rotating system would self-destruct in zero-g. kzbin.info/www/bejne/Z6mYhpyteqqpprM

[@buildershutgames5610]

Halo Rings be like

[@rafaelsantiagoaltoe6606]

1:05 I think centrifugal force is generated for a reason other than you said: our brain makes us think that the place we are in is stationary and we are the ones who move. For example, when you turn a car to the right, in reality the car is moving to the right, but our minds tell us that we are moving to the left (the relative moviment between us and the car); so, in its conception, there has to be a force to the left aplied in us, the centrifugal force. You said that it is because that, in a non-inertial reference frame of our body, everything but us is moving, but that's not the actual reason for the perseived force, if our brain really took that perspective, for it the body would stationary and the rest would be moving, in that case it would perseive no force in the body thus no centrifugal force. Actually, the brain takes the non-inertial reference of the place it is in, not of our body, so it ends up thinking the body is moving and the place is stationary. Which means that the place is inertial and the body has a force in it, the centrifugal one. That's is actually amazing, and shows how cool the nature of out minds can be.

[@raydunakin]

I was expecting a discussion of the possibility of artificially creating and controlling gravity. Centrifugal force merely simulates the effect of gravity.

[@rachidaachich6552]

Here comes the angry mob.

[@beaclaster]

does magnetic floor and metallic clothing work?

[@DarkCarbunkle]

How do you keep it spinning? You're so close!

[@Manu-xb2in]

It's in space, all mass keeps its impulse and therefore you only have to spin it once with some rockets or something.

[@Ashokkumar-xf9yu]

It is space bro once you spinn any thing it will spinn untill a another force act on it

[@wereNeverToBeSeenAgain]

There is an error in your calculation: "There is 2(pi) radians per revolution and 60 seconds in a minute. So one RPM equals 2(pi)/2." It should read "... one RPM equals *2(pi)/60* "

[@RealEngineering]

Thanks for the heads up! I'm awful for the typos

[@PhilipMReeder]

Are you aware of whether or not NASA aboard the ISS has ever conducted small scale experiments of centrifugal effects on small animals or insects to study the effects of orientation/disorientation? I used to follow ISS progress, but haven't in a few years.

[@bubbaole9036]

Easy now. Journalists don't take the same physics you took! They take astronomy 101 if they get caught by the advisor before they have enough hours to graduate.

[@Johnny-qg5kn]

You have gained a new subscriber my friend.GREAT VIDEO. Edit : I love 2001 Space Odyssey

[@thatmeme1360]

Man.. we need to all get together build a mining and launch base on the moon. Hit mars on our way out the solar system.

[@Jonbug1]

We not only have to mine the material, we have to then refine it.

[@zzebowa]

It is centripetal force! The reaction, centrifuge, is in the opposite direction to the force. When you accelerate in a car, the force is forwards, and you feel a reaction as your weight increases in the opposite direction. It is exactly the same thing. A trained engineer would never use the term 'centrifugal force' it is complete baloney.

[@Agedude]

That's a bit extreme. In the video he clearly explained what centrifugal force is and what it is not. As an engineer you can't simply ignore the very real effects of centrifuge. For all intents and purposes, as long as you have a rotating frame of reference you should treat it like a force. I mean, we do the same thing all the time with gravity. We know that the "force" of gravity is not exactly a force when considering spacetime and relativity, and yet for most practical purposes we can treat gravity as a force in a Newtonian way. The same goes for centrifugal force. You may not like the term or the semantics, but as long as you understand what causes the reaction to appear as a force, you can treat it as such.

[@zzebowa]

@@Agedude There is no centrifugal force. You can BS all you like about 'spacetime', it doesnt make a blind bit of difference. The force is towards the center of rotation, and is called centripetal.

[@randomguy0047]

We can just use Jeremy Clarkson's genius to do this at literally no cost

[@dashiellgillingham4579]

One of my uncles (once removed) works at NASA on the Mars 2020 lander project, and I asked him about this. He said you’d need to make the thing more than fifteen kilometers in diameter or anyone standing in the thing would get sick from the difference in G-forces acting on the head compared to the feet. The largest metal thing not reliant on concrete for support ever built was the Seawise Giant (scrapped 2010), which was only 458.45 meters long, to put in perspective how inconceivably massive this ‘space station’ would have to be. Keep in mind, the ISS needs to fire the engines of it’s transport rockets every once in a while just to stave off orbital decay, not to mention dodging derbis. This thing would have to be sturdy enough to pull off those maneuvers at that scale.