Habitat 2

[@redvelvet727]

I had this same idea when I was a child. Crazy stuff. It's almost identical. Mine didn't have any thing in the center. And I wanted to use the sun for heat energy and plants. I got the idea in science class while thinking about the graviton ride at carnivals. This one looks great. Way bigger than I imagined.

[@wingsley]

Beautiful rendering of this colony/station. I can't help but to wonder if a station like this would more likely be powered by the kind of "FlowerSat" power-satellites that futurist Isaac Arthur showed in his KZbin video "Power Satellites". I also wonder about what non-rotating modules could be attached to the axis of this colony, so that the inhabitants could more directly oversee zero-gravity industrial processes, possibly including the processing of either raw material from the Moon or near-Earth asteroids or the fabrication of processed components to be made into parts to either create or repair space installations. Of course, it's also possible that the inhabitants of a station like this, if located closer to the Moon, could be overseeing a robotic workforce in a Moon-based facility through telepresence. If that were the case, these station residents would be virtually mining the Moon (or asteroids) through robot eyes or even taking the raw materials and processing them on the lunar surface.

[@frans42000]

About the glass roof thing. You and I are at the bottom of a 250 mile layer of air. Its that thickness that give us a air pressure of about 15 PSI. Less air, means less pressure at the bottom/ground. That means a roofless design needs to have side "walls" at least 250 miles high to have 15 PSI.

[@SailorBarsoom]

The habitat I'm currently contemplating is a tube, rectangular in cross section, 5 Km "high" by 25 Km across, bent into a torus 50 Km in diameter. Intended as a wildlife park. For dinosaurs. Another one for all the mammoths, saber-toothed cats, cave bears, etc. Counter-rotating of course. No worries about the critters getting loose on Earth that way.

[@Arbarano]

Two things: the 2 million km radius habitat is named an orbital (after the work of Iain Banks): it is impossible to build, not for a question of engineering but basically a question of physics: the material should be as strongly bound as the particles in an atom nucleus... Second, the article from Forrest Bishop states that the maximum radius for a habitat made of carbon would be 461 km (it could be 1000 km for an empty shell, no air no buildings).

[@Crossroadsinc]

You would be very VERY surprised with how easy it is to 'build' nature stuff. Hills, beaches, forests. You just scoop up dirt or sand or whatever you want and shape it.

[@tentsforpaddies]

@fragomatik Centrifugal force is actually a "fictitious" force used to describe the effect of the only real force in action which is the "centripetal" force. Another "fictitious" force "experienced" in a rotating reference frame is the "coriolis" force. The key word here is "experienced"...the fictitious forces are "experienced" but they are really just illusions or symptoms of the only real force in action (centripetal) which acts towards the center of the habitat.

[@Arbarano]

@fragomatik Just an idea: in the Dawn of Night, this tube was a plasma tube. One can get it to emit the same light as the sun. So you don't need a "window" to get the light in. I dislike the idea of Rama or of the O'Neil cylinders because I suspect birds and flying insects (like bees) will not behave well with light coming from the floor.

[@mikecombs61]

Kudos! Excellent work and a subject matter worthy of promotion in my opinion.

[@Tribersman]

Thinking about it, just making a tour of the structure between the rotative section and the stationary shield would make a good story.

[@jaylay734]

I can only hope that I will see a glimpse of this or something like this in my lifetime

[@matthewjacobs141]

How long do you think you will live...something like this will be 500 years in the making

[@SuperHardshell]

I came back to check the Like button and noticed my comment was gone but this great and can't remb. what i put before but this is good and like the ease of the capsule coming out at 2:45--smooth. Keep it up. I know nothing of this work but enjoy it as long as the muzak is on with it-Ha!..Very well done.

[@JovianJeff]

This was gorgeous! Beautiful design and way of showing it off. Loved the small to large approach of zooming out from the butterfly. A great showcasing video that also closed well. Great job!

[@granddad2002]

This will be some of the most ambitious engineering ever attempted. It will rival the construction of Coolidge Dam and the Panama Canal combined! Tie this to a space elevator... this will become the most valuable real estate in the Solar System.

[@Justwantahover]

Unless we use space robotics and AI to completely autonomously build them, we won't be able to do it (financially). But with space robotics it may (eventually) cost like nothing. A big difference.

[@ChrisBrengel]

_Fantastic_ graphics! Wow!

[@Tribersman]

Wooow ! I think I'll save it and the text for future reference. (if you don't mind) And a very nice presentation, I guess the question of why we don't use the sunlight directly must come often. But explaining why we don't make the Shield move too is a excellent point. But what did you take in account to know how much people it will be able to house ? When I look at the size of human I believe it should be for at least 100 000 habitant

[@SailorBarsoom]

The force sticking you to the wall (centripetal force) has to be stronger than the force pulling you to the floor (Earth's gravity). This habitat would work the same way. It is several miles across, so it spins at less than one rotation per minute (meaning you wouldn't notice it), and being in Space, it doesn't have to overcome Earth's gravity. All of the people, dogs, water, etc. are STUCK TO THE WALL. To them, it seems like they are walking on the ground, but they are STUCK TO THE WALL.

[@td9308]

The big problem of space cockpits are meteors whose violent impacts can cause damage difficult to repair. The habitable space stations must be obligatorily in independent modules to preserve its atmosphere.

[@fragomatik]

+Rubens Bertão Radiation is a bigger risk than impacts. Impacts are statistically very rare. The ISS has been subjected to orbital debris since it's construction more than a decade ago and has managed to survive with very few impacts, causing only very minor damage. So, you're saying space stations and vehicles need "independent modules" to preserve atmospheric integrity? Well of course they do! We do the same with ocean-going ships and submarines, which use bulkheads, doors and seals to prevent the entire vessel from flooding if there's a leak. That's just good engineering sense! Yes, space exploration is dangerous, but since when has humanity ever stopped exploring because it's risky?

[@numberjackfiutro7412]

@@fragomatik The biggest hurdle to civilian space exploration and colonization is the prohibitive cost to get people and cargo into orbit, $3000 or so per kg! Space elevators and stratospheric\ mesospheric launch systems would likely lower the price significantly, possibly to $100 - $300 per kilogram. Until launch costs are lowered significantly, visiting and settlement of outer space by civilians will not happen!

[@Arbarano]

Mistake: It's an article by McKendree, titled Implications of Molecular Nanotechnology Technical Performance Parameters on Previously Defined Space System Architectures

[@leestewart72]

Great video, but I do have one suggestion. Those spacecraft at the end are way out of scale with the colony. They would be extremely tiny compared to such a massive structure. Other than that, it's an awe inspiring vision.

[@hitssquad]

@jedihunter176 "If this Stanford Torus has enough gravity to support an atmosphere, there shouldn't be a need for glass." ...As long as the side walls are hundreds of miles high.

[@MatthewBendyna]

It would be significantly smaller than a planet, and I see the asteroid belt alone as the perfect site for obtaining the necessary materials to build a whole network of them, and there would still be plenty of raw material left for the implementation of future starships; that is assuming we don't invent something on the order of warp drive or wormhole technologies.

[@hitssquad]

@GingerBillVideos "it's not 1854340km it would have to be 1854969.425." I just checked, using the formula you posted. You're right. Thanks.

[@PersonOfBook]

Besides other benefits, one benefit of such an habitat would be that you can control the weather and the day/night length. You could have a perpetual spring weather for example. And the day and night length can be adjusted to suit whatever most of the citizens of such a station wish to be. So, you won't have things like freezing winters, extremely hot summers, harsh winds, annoying raining, early nights and early mornings etc.

[@frans42000]

@hitssquad Damn, that is a LOT bigger than I had expected just to reach 1g. I guess it's still technically feasible. I wonder what the stress factors on steel would be to have to support that kind of size and this kind of load.

[@hitssquad]

@jedihunter176 "By the way, does it even need glass at all? Or is the gravity not strong enough to support an atmosphere" The answer has already been posted: "frans42000 (4 months ago) +3 About the glass roof thing. You and I are at the bottom of a 250 mile layer of air. Its that thickness that give us a air pressure of about 15 PSI. Less air, means less pressure at the bottom/ground. That means a roofless design needs to have side "walls" at least 250 miles high to have 15 PSI."

[@SailorBarsoom]

@fragomatik Since the radiation shield is so much more massive than the habitat itself, could it perhaps be counter-rotated very slowly, and do the work of that second torus everybody keeps talking about? That might fix the torque problem. Since it would be rotating slowly, it wouldn't have to be strong enough to withstand a full G.

[@Crossroadsinc]

That is why two connected colonies spinning in opposite directions work so well. There is less 'drift' since the axial motion offsets each other.

[@Stego2001]

It seems larger than that to me. Just the width of the ring seems to be at least two kilometers. That building on the edge with the cantilever seems to be about 100 stories in height, I assume you have a gold retriever. I believe such a structure can easily be assembled with robotic machines extracting the aluminium from the Moon and forming it into precise components.

[@Arbarano]

@fragomatik You know, ten meters deep of water weigh the same as sea level air pressure. So, it is feasible. It the series of novels The Dawn of Night, all the Edenist habitats have an «ocean» up to 200 m deep. THAT's water. As a matter of fact, I think these habitats are designed (in The Dawn of Night) makes more sens: a cylinder with a center light tube. What do you think of that?

[@MatthewBendyna]

I think the stronger materials will have to be synthesized, not mined, but that may be accomplished before we get to the point of building these things.

[@borusa32]

Nice work.I think such habitats would be much too vulnerable to damage from within and without.

[@fragomatik]

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.

[@sculptureshard377]

Excellent video indeed, with the most amazing musical score, Is this piece of music available on I tunes?

[@d.wayneharbison8691]

Looks like a Stanford Torus!

[@fragomatik]

As mentioned in the video description, it is based on the Stanford Torus.

[@d.wayneharbison8691]

Unfortunately, the audio kept fading in and out. I didn't catch that part. Still a great design. I would like to see more as I am currently writing a novel set inside one.

[@fragomatik]

@@d.wayneharbison8691 Ah yes, the audio issue was caused by KZbin's horrendous content-matching algorithm *10 years after* my video was originally posted! (The full story on *that* is also in the video description text). Hey, a stanford torus would make a wonderful setting for a novel! If you haven't already seen it, you may be interested in one of my other habitat-series videos depicting an asteroid "bubble-world": kzbin.info/www/bejne/qaiwcp2Xhpp0qbM I reckon a colonised asteroid like this would also make for a great sci-fi setting: it has natural caves and hollows; mega-engineering; a large diverse population; lots of dark & moody nooks and crannies for the characters to interact within...what's not to like lol! Anyway, hope you've enjoyed my modest work! And good luck with the writing! Please let us know how it goes - as a voracious reader, I'm definitely interested in such things! 🚀🧑‍🚀

[@d.wayneharbison8691]

@@fragomatik Thanks for the information! I'm always interested in space habitats and megastructures. The idea of a civilization of trillions all thriving in a single solar system fascinates me.

[@frans42000]

@Aussiemoo With regards to an open roof design, not really. It would be like trying to pump air pressure into a bucket. Bottom, side, but no top. In a normal Standford torus, yes that is how it's done.

[@randomizerman]

Love the idea of using centrifical spinner like thes, however would it not be more cost efective to have maney stories in the tubes and use artificel light or fiberoptics so you can fit 100 times the amount of produce and people inside of it?

[@Goronful]

Holy crap excellent model, well done guy.

[@Stego2001]

Love the animation. So much detail. What is the circumference?

[@kacamac]

I'm seeing a lot of these hypothetical space stations that waste so much precious limited space by using rural or suburban like areas instead of more efficient urban environment that would cut down on space wasted and travel necessary for the inhabitants.

[@ramonantonioalvarezmedina5734]

¡Maravilloso! Wonderful!

[@fragomatik]

Muchísimas gracias! 🚀

[@phongbong]

@fragomatik Well could you make one true to scale with the outer-shield for us hard scifi geeks? ;D

[@PsionNinja]

When this station gets made (or something similar) they better not use that candy-glass used in the movie "Total Recal". That glass was so fragile it breaks if you stare at it hard enough.

[@RobCookJr]

Thank you for the time you've spent animating ring-type habitats and worlds. Keep up the awesome work!

[@caelhanwood6402]

Both the description and animation of this habitat are awesome! I'm looking forward to more of your work! Thanks for the links as well.

[@corrysvang]

Futuristic life with Tess inside Habitat orbiting with Gravity Simulator...Fantastic !!!...

[@SailorBarsoom]

I knew you'd like it. ^_~ Smaller than a Bishop ring, but still pretty huge. I'm going to make a point of having one of the characters refer to it as, "...the second largest space habitat ever built."

[@crediki100]

Thanks. Your bringing some very cool science fiction novels to life.

[@SailorBarsoom]

If I were a rich man (da dee da dee da dee), I'd hire you to work on my TV show. Of course, I don't have a TV show, but if... Good work. I'm looking forward to your next. And Space Elevator? Yeah, I can go for that.

[@HeliosWorksAV]

Another great production - how long did it take to create?

[@projection9771]

Completely brilliant! Undertaking a study project on space colonies and this is very inspirational :)

[@illustriouschin]

if large blades were placed around the outside edge would the solar radiation be enough to keep it spinning?

[@altha-rf1et]

Robots can do most of the work, if not all, could be mining other planets and asteroids by this time for materials

[@alcaminhante]

Love it. Rama coming true.

[@SailorBarsoom]

When you say e Km, do you mean the overall diameter or the, um... tube diameter? What would you call it? If you've got carbon buckytubes, then you can go pretty durned big. A guy named Forrest Bishop calculated that such a material would allow ring-shaped habitats of 2,000 Km diameter! Not quite Larry Niven, but still, pretty freaking huge!

[@cy01]

Wouldn't everything be pulled off the ground by the artificial gravity?

[@fragomatik]

No. In the scenario illustrated in the video, the "ground" is the inner-surface of the outer part of the rotating wheel-shaped habitat. To a person standing on the inner-surface, the "UP" direction is toward the centre hub of the habitat, and "DOWN" is toward the outer edge. Their head would be pointing to the centre, and their feet would be pointing to the outer edge. "Artificial Gravity" is the term given for simulating gravity through acceleration. In this instance it is *Centripetal Acceleration* that produces the pseudo-gravity "force". As the habitat rotates, this force holds objects (ie. people, buildings, etc) to the inner-surface of the wheel. This force works and feels pretty much the same as real gravity. You may have seen the type of cylindrical amusement-park ride (commonly named The Rotor or The Gravitron) where the rider finds themselves stuck to the wall of the cylinder as it rapidly rotates. The same principal on a larger scale is used to provide artificial gravity on a rotating space-station or habitat, as in this video. One can also simulate gravity through *linear acceleration.* This is why you feel a force pushing you back into your car seat when accelerating rapidly forward. For more information: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artificial_gravity en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitron en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rotor_(ride)

[@cy01]

@@fragomatik oh thank you

[@fragomatik]

@@cy01 You're very welcome! 👍

[@SailorBarsoom]

Well I should hope so! I'm not going to be a rich man for long if every four or five minutes takes a month to make! But you do capture the sort of look I'd want. BTW, just how big is that thing? It has to be several hundred metres wide, if not a thousand or more.

[@ohedd]

Ok thanks. So the Habitat featured in Halo would be impossible to replicate functional? But can't the mirror act like a filtre and entirely protect the habitat from radiation?

[@fragomatik]

From memory, the Apollo lunar dust samples mainly consisted of fine, impact-produced glass (silica?) particles with sharp/jagged edges. Possibly a bit more abrasive than Earth sands? Perhaps it could be processed to "round-off" the edges and make it a bit less "toxic"? In any case, I reckon you're right, they'd import it from the Moon...or maybe even from a captured asteroid.

[@KinaNafasi]

Dude! You rock man!

[@danielday36]

Did you ever watch Mobile Suit Gundam, and Gundam SEED. I would love to live in a cylinder or even a PLANT. Also terraforming mars requires one thing, a magnetic field like the earth. With out it, the atmosphere we put on it will just blow away into space.

[@SpazzyMcGee1337]

Cool, but Carl Sagan didn't mean to say humanity should leave planets all together. He simply meant civilization was in danger as long as it was confined to one world.

[@ohedd]

Hey, Fragomatik, you seem to have a lot figured out in your head, so I'm wondering something; I know that the angular velocity combined with a certain radius (diameter if you will) on a circulare object creates centrifugal force, but if it is possible to achieve the same level of gravity on this habitat, isn't it possible to completely remove the roof and just keep some high walls on the side to keep the air inside? I mean the air is trapped on earth, so why not in a space habitat?

[@hitssquad]

@fragomatik "the lack of a Martian magnetic field means that UV is unfiltered" What would a magnetic-field have to do with filtering of UV? Magnets acts on charged particles. On Earth, the ozone layer is what filters UV. Earth's magnetosphere protects against the charged particles that make up the solar wind. en. wikipedia. org/wiki/Magnetosphere#General_properties

[@Lead999x]

wouldn't gravity pull the mirror disc and the habitat together, and wouldn't the star's gravity also have an effect? (Gm1m2)/r^2 or something like that.

[@PandaMurd3er]

will we ever build this thing?

[@SuperHardshell]

Ahh Man, this is great and better muzak. Good stuff--"you guys that do these are really good at it" I really enjoyed this one and give ya a Check on your report card. But this crusty 'ol bastard says ...Coo-ooool! Good job dude. Definately like the opening Sagan comment that went right in place with this. Keep it up and still following ya, somebodys got to keep in check. Ha! Run it slow.

[@dream.machine]

I would love to see habitats being built between the 2020s and 2080s.

[@SailorBarsoom]

me sowwy :( You could probably get by with Kevlar or basalt fiber. It isn't much more across than the Island Three cylinders.

[@randomizerman]

Thanks

[@MatthewBendyna]

This is great. Do you think it would be possible to do it on a larger scale, though? You know, the idea of having plates the size of continents. It wouldn't be in orbit around anything but a gas giant or on it's own around a star. We wouldn't have to worry about finding terrestrial planets when we begin interstellar travel, only material.

[@SailorBarsoom]

"Not you too, Arbarano!? No, it's meant to be about 3km diameter, but in my original post to SailorBarsoom..." BWAHAHAAAA! Really though, just own the 14 Km. That's a fine size for a habitat. It isn't any more than the 19.3 Km O'Neill said could be done with "ordinary materials." I imagine it would be built some decades after Island One sized habs, and might have a much lower population density. This is a very cool thing you've built here, and you don't need to back off the size a millimetre, because the size is just fine.

[@dougmc666]

The solar mirror is a great solution for harmful solar radiation, but the glazing inside the rim is open to cosmic radiation.

[@kiml42]

Excellent design, very well thought out.

[@rogerpenna]

the Orion Capsule and ESA Shuttle dont seem to be on the same scale as the rest of the model (or at least, the stuff INSIDE the torus)....

[@danielday36]

What do you Think About the PLANTS in Gundam SEED?

[@gosgood1973]

Awesome.

[@siskavard]

This is great. I always enjoy your videos.

[@thregar]

Absolutely superb work.. loved it! :)

[@harolze]

Great video, but it made me thinking.. Could it be more effective to split the whole living space inside a torus to several floors. Then colony could host 10 times more people. Sky, clouds and scenery could be projected artificially. Floors could be at least 30m tall, so human stereo vision couldn't see any difference to real sky. Power full led-lights could mimic the sun. That would be much cheaper and could be made earlier.

[@dandaintac388]

I would guess that the sand could be more easily brought from the moon, there's plenty of fine-grained material, although in reality the coloring might be a bit different, and I'm not sure if the texture would be the same.

[@kevincarulasan6385]

this is fasinating

[@charjl96]

"star reaction" you mean like fusion? if so, i'm relieved to see you're grounded in reality and not some crazy person who reads too much scifi. unfortunately though, we have yet to achieve nuclear fusion. once we accomplish that, than we can talk about putting it in spaceships. think about it! clean, cheap, and nearly limitless energy!!!! i can't wait to see the day!

[@welnwerkrebet9773]

I have a doubt about rotary orbital space stations, once reached enough rotation speed to create artificial gravity, would this rotation keep indefinitely at least an opposing force decrease the rotation? Or, eventually, would be necessary additional thrust to keep the rotation speed? There's any kind of opposing force inside or outside the station that could decrease the rotation speed? If anyone knows the answer, please tell me

[@fragomatik]

+welnwer krebet In general, the rotation would continue virtually indefinitely. Since space is an almost perfect vacuum, there would be very little friction to slow the rotation down. In reality, even at the altitude of the ISS, there is some friction with the very thin atmosphere, which causes the ISS orbit to slow down, and for the altitude to decrease. That's why the ISS is continuously monitored and from time-to-time thrusters are used to adjust its orbit height. In a rotating system however, there would also be some slight friction at the hub of the rotating components, at the bearings. The amount of friction and rate of slowing would be dependent on the efficiency of the bearing(s). Without regular adjustment, over time there would be a slow, decreasing of the rotation speed. In space this would take a long time, but without adjustments it would get worse and worse over time. Therefore, the rotating assembly would need to be monitored with slight adjustments from time-to-time to keep the desired rate of rotation. Simple electric motors and a gearing system is all that is required for minor adjustments. The Nautilus-X centrifuge design... kzbin.info/www/bejne/noDFk39qeaiYqas ... uses liquid bearings to reduce friction at the hub. For startup- and slowdown-of-rotation it uses a thruster-cluster at the outer edge of the rotating centrifuge, but for minor adjustments it uses a dynamic flywheel counter-weight. It also uses a clever Hobermann-Sphere arrangement to adjust weighted rings around the centrifuge, to keep the wheel balanced. This allows the system to adjust itself for when mass distribution changes, such as when astronauts move around inside, or when stored items are moved around within the centrifuge. This is sort of like the wheel-balancing weights on a care tyre, but controlled automatically via computer-monitored feedback-loops. For larger and more massive rotating assemblies, or for major adjustments, rocket thrusters could be be used. There are other ways to manage and control the rotation rate of massive components. The Kalpana One design... kzbin.info/www/bejne/nprRmJ2GYqegrKM ... (for example) uses counterweights on adjustable cables controlled by electric motors. Extending the counterweights away from the centre of gravity slows the rotation, while pulling them in towards the centre increases the rate. This is like when a twirling ballerina pulls her arms in toward her body, she spins faster...same principle. Hope this answers your questions :)

[@welnwerkrebet9773]

+f r a g o m a t i k Wow! Such a fast and complete response, I didn't expect that, thank you very much! : ) by the way, sorry for my English, not my native language, It seems you know a lot about that, so I would like to make you another question if is not an inconvenient.In a rotary orbital space station, the artificial gravity is made by the centrifugal (or centripetal, I don’t know) force provide by the rotation speed, so I think it wont feels perfectly perpendicular to the ground like the natural gravity provide by enough amount of mass, but a little bit oblique respect the station axis, so the bigger the station diameter/ radius is, the less rotation speed would be necessary to provides enough gravity and the less oblique and more natural and comfortable would feel for the occupants, I am right?

[@fragomatik]

+welnwer krebet Haha, no worries! And your English is fine, believe me! I had no problem understanding your questions. I'll try my best to answer you, but be aware: I'm an amateur artist, *not* a scientist ;) I understand that "centripetal" is the proper term for the force we're discussing: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Centripetal_force Yes, you are right about the effects. One of the problems with rotating structures for artificial gravity is coriolis effect. On a large scale habitat like in this video, it's not so bad, but on small structures the head and feet are moving at significantly different speeds. This can cause a gravity-gradient effect. Because centripetal force is directly proportional to radius, increasing radius reduces gravity-gradient between head-to-feet. Motion sickness and dizziness can result due to the interactions of the rotation with the centrifuge and the normal turning of one's head! Walking in the direction of spin increases centripetal force, and walking anti-spinward decreases the force, so it would feel different, perhaps like walking up an incline, or down a hill. Have a look at this NASA experimental video: kzbin.info/www/bejne/qYfJemCDhL1snrM Also, have a look at this site: www.artificial-gravity.com/sw/SpinCalc/ It allows you to play with the different variables that determine artificial gravity amount, rotation rate, centripetal force and its effects on "comfort". Enjoy!

[@welnwerkrebet9773]

+f r a g o m a t i k Well, I just can say thanks again pal : ) very exhaustive and inclusive response, it totally resolves my doubt once again By the way the artificial gravity calculator webpage is very useful, thank you very much!

[@sritanujakakinada6436]

How the orbit rotates ? With what help it rotates?

[@Arbarano]

@fragomatik I respond the discussion started by Frans42000. A question to you: is the water in the riverlike center lake (it's not a river, as it cannot flow) salty or sweet?

[@Aussiemoo]

@frans42000 couldn't you just pump more air into the system? That's how you increase PSI in a tire.

[@antred11]

Amazing! :) I only wish mankind would get its act together and start working on these. Progress is so slooooww ...

[@DBZ483]

@fragomatik haha no problem awesome vids ;)

[@dandaintac388]

Love your response to this nut. Have you read "Songs of Distant Earth" by Arthur C Clarke? Beautiful novel! Wish they would make it into a movie. In it, Earth has to be evacuated, and of course, nuts like this guy try to sabotage the effort. It's also a great description of an interstellar spacecraft, as well as the real impetus that might get us there.

[@marmaladekamikaze]

Can you include the Radiation shield as per your description of this video? and do you think it at all possible that sections of the rim of this torus(the 'floor') could be built from cut asteroid sections? And I wouldn't worry to much about radiation, by the time humanity considers builing one of these I'm sure the creation of a magnetic field around the habitat would be a piece of cake, which would attenuate the radiation arriving at the habitat, to Earth like levels.

[@frans42000]

Can someone tell me the math formula to get the radius for 1G(9.8m/s/s) centrifugal acceleration and a rotational interval of 1 per 24hours? I'm curious how big a station would be for normal gravity, and a normal day/night cycle without any "moving" mirrors (movement = breakage!) I.e. a torus with a stationary half-moon mirror.

[@HammaneggsAirborne]

This makes me wonder, even mining to the core (nearly impossible), and the Oort cloud+ other planets, how in the science of mass could this be built?

[@SailorBarsoom]

I'll give it a whack. Mistic, you ever go to a state fair or a theme park, and get on that ride that spins around really fast, and you're stuck to the wall, and the floor drops down but you don't fall because you're stuck to the wall? The ride has to spin so fast because it isn't very big. If it were over a mile across, then one spin every minute would be enough to stick you to the wall. The other reason it has to spin so fast is because it is on Earth. The force sticking you to the wall...

[@Johns805]

...I think these could happen in places where there are no habitable planets available.... I envision them someday a long way off in the future.....besides repairing earth, we first have the moon, mars and perhaps asteroids that can be hollowed out to be nature spaceships....we still have to make the baby steps to do all these things...I hope at least some of it happens soon and I'm present to see them :)!

[@kannata3962]

hi, which is better this o the O'Neill cylinder and why ?????

[@fragomatik]

+Kan Nata It depends a lot on your definition of "better"... there are many pros and cons to each design. Here are a few... O'Neill Cylinder : en.wikipedia.org/wiki/O'Neill_cylinder ...is bigger, more expensive, more difficult to build and maintain and stabilise, but could accommodate *millions* of occupants. The radius-to-length ratio is also inherently unstable, so the design calls for two linked O'Neill cylinders, each rotating in the opposite direction to the other. This means you need to build *two* massive habitats to keep each other rotationally stable. That's quite an expensive and resource intensive commitment! The Stanford Torus : en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanford_torus ...is smaller, therefore cheaper and "easier" to build, and can accommodate about 10,000 occupants, but is also inherently unstable, so requires active control and regular adjustment. This requires energy for adjustments and adds complexity, especially when considering it uses large appendages (solar-panels, sun-mirrors, shielding, central hub docking ports, etc). In general, cylindrical structures are more efficient than a torus when considering the amount of shielding required per unit of living area. Cylinders are also more rotationally stable when their length is close to 1.3r (ie. 1.3 x radius). An example of a stable cylinder design is Kalpana One : kzbin.info/www/bejne/nprRmJ2GYqegrKM The O'Neill Cylinder requires lower RPM to generate the same "gravity" due to the large radius. More RPM is required for the Stanford Torus, which isn't a problem in itself, but it uses a non-rotating shield because the shielding required is too massive to rotate at the required rate without flying apart. The problem with that is the danger of having rapidly spinning components making contact with a non-rotating shield, which would be catastrophic. The O'Neill Cylinder and Kalpana One avoid this by integrating the shield and rotating it at the same rate. The OC's large radius means slower RPM, therefore less rotational stress on the integrated shielding. K1 is much smaller than OC or ST, therefore its shield is much less massive, and so once again it is possible to rotate the integrated shield at the same rate as the rest of the structure. Personally, I think the smaller cylindrical designs such as Kalpana One are best. They are inherently more stable, and they are scalable (we can start off small, and then build larger as we learn to control the factors which determine cost, efficiency and safety), they are relatively simple in design, with no need for large appendages or non-rotating components. It is probably better to build lots of smaller (325m length) Kalpana habitats to start with, than to try and build twin 32-kilometre-long O'Neill habitats. For more information, read the linked articles. Hope this helps!

[@BladeEffect]

we need to colonise solar system with these things... but when? and at what cost?

[@hitssquad]

@frans42000 "I guess it's still technically feasible." I doubt it. How you make the spokes? The breaking-length of steel is only: en. wikipedia. org/wiki/Specific_strength 26 kilometers. "I wonder what the stress factors" Maybe multiply the radius of curvature in inches by the psi: 7.3e10 inches x 14.7 psi = 1.0735453e13 psi = ~11 trillion psi required tensile strength of the outer skin. Math has been done for other large objects: kschroeder. com/my-books/sun-of-suns/engineering-virga

[@Neuronaluniverse]

@fragomatik it´s a Neuronal Synthesizer ,with possibility and sound absolutely differents.you can hear it in youtube neuronaluniverse.thanks for your video.all the best from Valencia.

[@eclipsenow5431]

How close are we to self-replicating ships that we could fire up at the asteroid field, mine all the useful minerals and energy sources (uranium and thorium) to then build a fleet of similar colonising ships that can go on to stage 2: building habitats? Space X could send more space miners every few years as the mining fleet grew, and then we'd have hundreds, maybe thousands of people working to build giant habitats that could then take it from there.

[@G1NZOU]

Wouldn't it be better to have sealable sections in case of pressure loss, all that glass makes me worried.