Artificial Gravity Problem

PSJ

P
Today I was messing around docking with rotation correction off, and couldn't help but notice that some of the vehicles are travelling along in the opposite direction of the stations rotation, at the same speed it is rotating.

In reality, this would surely mean the ~0.1g at the docking port surface is cancelled out. Imagine what would happen if they hit the slightest bump; they would just float into the middle of the docking port.

Come to think of it, if someone where to run fast enough against the rotation to cancel it out, they could just float off and be stranded for a while, which would obviously be very dangerous in a busy docking area:eek:!
 

Kaputtnik

Kaputtnik
Just had some pictures pop up in my head. Hilarious. :D

Those reckless space-teenagers inventing new forms of tests of courage. We have to ban running against station rotation!
 

PSJ

P
Lobstris said:
All of this has happened before, and will happen again... :)

http://forums.frontier.co.uk/showthread.php?p=403909#post403909

Edit - Can people (Beta-backers/everyone?) see the defunct Alpha forum now? If not the issue of the vehicles in the stations was discussed at length before - which lead to this link...

http://www.bogan.ca/physics/coriolis.html

:)
Click to expand...

No, sorry, I cannot see it. I would be fascinated too see what has been written on this topic, but the search didn't pull up anything interesting.
 

Literalyte

Literalyte
PSJ said:
Come to think of it, if someone where to run fast enough against the rotation to cancel it out, they could just float off and be stranded for a while, which would obviously be very dangerous in a busy docking area:eek:!
Click to expand...

If the cars are travelling at the same speed as the surface underneath, they need a vertical impulse to fly away. There is an atmosphere in the station, and so we can assume that the cars will experience air resistance, pushing them down onto the road.
 
Last edited:

Vargur

Vargur
Literalyte said:
If the cars are travelling at the same speed as the surface underneath, they need a vertical impulse to fly away. There is an atmosphere in the station, and so we can assume that the cars will experience air resistance, pushing them down onto the road.
Click to expand...

Air resistance is negligible for such massive objects at low velocity.
And air resistance can't push you down.
Its a force that works in the opposite direction of your velocity.
At most it can grind your velocity to 0, and when velocity is 0 your air resistance will also be 0 :)
 
Last edited:

Literalyte

Literalyte
Vargur said:
Air resistance is negligible for such massive objects at low velocity.
And air resistance can't push you down.
Its a force that works in the opposite direction of your velocity.
At most it can grind your velocity to 0, and when velocity is 0 your air resistance will also be 0 :)
Click to expand...

Not true on both accounts. The cars' windshields are angular, such there is a vertical component of force centrifugally. A large force is also not necessary as there are no impulses acting in the opposite direction.
 

PSJ

P
Vargur said:
Air resistance is negligible for such massive objects at low velocity.
And air resistance can't push you down.
Its a force that works in the opposite direction of your velocity.
At most it can grind your velocity to 0, and when velocity is 0 your air resistance will also be 0 :)
Click to expand...

I suppose the rotation of the station and movement of the many objects protruding from the ground will stir the air in the direction of rotation, which may in fact cause the object to be slowly pushed along in a straight line, which would eventually intersect the ground again.
 

Commander Dave

Commander Dave
Literalyte said:
Not true on both accounts. The cars' windshields are angular, such there is a vertical component of force centrifugally. A large force is also not necessary as there are no impulses acting in the opposite direction.
Click to expand...

It was true on both accounts.
What the explanation did not take account of was the specifics of the vehicles themselves. If they are travelling fast enough there will, as you say, be a force downwards created by the aerodynamic characteristics of the vehicle, however inefficient they may be. It was a general statement that applies, for example, to spheres.
 

Vargur

Vargur
Literalyte said:
Not true on both accounts. The cars' windshields are angular, such there is a vertical component of force centrifugally. A large force is also not necessary as there are no impulses acting in the opposite direction.
Click to expand...

In case of racecars you would be getting a downward force because of the reversed lift taking place. Regular cars might also get a very small amount, depending on how aerodynamical they are built.

However the case here is about some clunky loading trucks where aerodynamics is non existant. Also these trucks don't drive fast, and you get exponentially less drag when your velocity goes down.

But after doing some more calculations, it seems like the scenario the OP has mentioned would probably never occur anyway.
The docking cylinder at the surface level we land on has about a velocity of 70-100 km/h. So the trucks would have to drive this fast in the opposite direction to try and cancel out the centripetal force, which i doubt would be feasible.
 

Commander Dave

Commander Dave
Vargur said:
But after doing some more calculations, it seems like the scenario the OP has mentioned would probably never occur anyway.
The docking cylinder at the surface level we land on has about a velocity of 70-100 km/h. So the trucks would have to drive this fast in the opposite direction to try and cancel out the centripetal force, which i doubt would be feasible.
Click to expand...

Good point.
So their "effective weight" would be a little less but nothing like low enough to give rise to stability issues.
 

PSJ

P
Vargur said:
In case of racecars you would be getting a downward force because of the reversed lift taking place. Regular cars might also get a very small amount, depending on how aerodynamical they are built.

However the case here is about some clunky loading trucks where aerodynamics is non existant. Also these trucks don't drive fast, and you get exponentially less drag when your velocity goes down.

But after doing some more calculations, it seems like the scenario the OP has mentioned would probably never occur anyway.
The docking cylinder at the surface level we land on has about a velocity of 70-100 km/h. So the trucks would have to drive this fast in the opposite direction to try and cancel out the centripetal force, which i doubt would be feasible.
Click to expand...

As noted in my first post, turning off rotation correction within the docking port an simply watching the vehicles moving shows them appently stationary relative to my ship. But I guess magnets would remedy the problem, and certainly people would not be able to run at 70kmph ;).
 

Tech

T

PSJ

P
Tech said:
I can't see the Alpha forums either.

How do we turn rotation correction on? Is it on by default?
Click to expand...

In the control settings you can bind it to a key, not sure what the default is.

Also in your right hand monitor it is available in the functions tab;)
 

Literalyte

Literalyte
Commander Dave said:
It was true on both accounts.
What the explanation did not take account of was the specifics of the vehicles themselves. If they are travelling fast enough there will, as you say, be a force downwards created by the aerodynamic characteristics of the vehicle, however inefficient they may be. It was a general statement that applies, for example, to spheres.
Click to expand...

No, it was wrong on both accounts.

>"And air resistance can't push you down."

False. Air resistance is a reaction force that is applicable to jutting normals.

>"Its a force that works in the opposite direction of your velocity."

False. It is a component of surface tension, and reaction force. These components do not have to be symmetrical.

>"Air resistance is negligible for such massive objects at low velocity."

Irrelevant. There are no counter forces applicable.

Tech said:
I can't see the Alpha forums either.

How do we turn rotation correction on? Is it on by default?
Click to expand...

You can find the option on the 'functions' section of the right hand panel.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom