General / Off-Topic Centrifugal artificial gravity, spacecraft, flooring, and starship design...

Imagine a classical interstellar starship design with a centrifugal ring, rotating enough to provide a force that simulates gravity (say from 0.4g to 1.0g or somewhere in-between); in classical representations, the floor inside this ring is curved to preserve a constant force against the floor and equilibrium for the astronauts. Now, let's take that idea further and compartmentalize this ring into several sections--say five or ten, except now, instead of having curved flooring, it is flat in each section, but still rotating about the central hub axis. To better imagine how it looks, think a octagon or a decagon. In theory, you'd have varying degrees of linear acceleration in each chamber due to the flat flooring depending on where they stand, correct?


What problems would this create for the astronauts onboard? This whole scenario arises from basic starship needs:
a. They must accelerate to whatever velocity. Assume (a) has been solved and astronauts are only conscious during (b) and (c).
b. Period of straight travel with zero velocity adjustment.
c. Extended period of deceleration--think two or more years, at <1g. In (b), the ring centrifuge would provide livable artificial gravity.


However, when you transition to (c), if the ring is still spinning, not only will you have a vector pushing the astronauts outside the ring, but you will have an additional vector at 90 degrees to the first vector due to the decelerative force. This would make astronauts very sick--thus creating an interesting problem... With flat flooring, each compartment could be rotated (assuming expansive joints that connect them to compensate for geometry changes), the floor during deceleration would provide artificial gravity and the ring would stop spinning.


This would work fine... IF... the floor of the compartments in the ring did not need to be curved in (b). So, science folks, what do you think? Will the flat flooring work or will it be terrible for the folks inside? Assume constant linear acceleration is impossible in the acceleration phase due to fuel and weight requirements--so for the sake of the question, changing phase (a) profile is impossible.
 
I don't understand your logic. Why does the starship take longer to decelerate than to accelerate, and why can't the crew be unconscious during deceleration like they are under acceleration?
 
Last edited:
I don't understand your logic. Why does the starship take longer to decelerate than to accelerate, and why can't the crew be unconscious during deceleration like they are under acceleration?

Well, the acceleration occurs under exceptionally high g-loads and a very short period of time (think hours to days). I've already solved how to keep the crew alive during this phase--and power the spacecraft, and it must occur this way because it is impossible to carry enough fuel to reach velocities being attained and output enough power for a zero-propellant drive from a reactor in this period of time.

The slowdown period however, must occur over several years due to weight limitations on the spacecraft and feasible powerplant size, excess heat and radiation dumping, and total sustainable powerplant output. (I've actually done the calculations) You can't keep people asleep for two years, not with our current level of technology, and avoid severe body atrophy.

So they must be awake, and they can't be awake for the acceleration phase.
 
Ok - your starship uses an external power source for the acceleration phase. Makes sense. And back to the problem with the ring, why can't you just design it so that one of the 'walls' can also function as a 'floor'? Clearly some equipment would need to be movable to function properly, but I don't see that as a fundamental issue. You can stop the ring, move everything that needs relocation under zero-G and then start the deceleration.
 
Your curved floor / flat floor issue goes away with scale. If the radius of your cylindrical vessel was relatively large then the disparity would be negligible.
 
Ok - your starship uses an external power source for the acceleration phase. Makes sense. And back to the problem with the ring, why can't you just design it so that one of the 'walls' can also function as a 'floor'? Clearly some equipment would need to be movable to function properly, but I don't see that as a fundamental issue. You can stop the ring, move everything that needs relocation under zero-G and then start the deceleration.

Yeah, that's similar to what I've come up with--compartmentalized sections connected through flex joints to allow them to rotate 90 degrees for the deceleration phase. Still debating flat floor vs. curved.

- - - - - Additional Content Posted / Auto Merge - - - - -

Your curved floor / flat floor issue goes away with scale. If the radius of your cylindrical vessel was relatively large then the disparity would be negligible.


I wonder how large though? The acceleration phase is exceptionally violent at over 30gs for days. After speaking with an engineer today I think I figured out how to reinforce the outer ring without adding too much weight.
 
I wonder how large though? The acceleration phase is exceptionally violent at over 30gs for days. After speaking with an engineer today I think I figured out how to reinforce the outer ring without adding too much weight.

Unless I've misunderstood, the acceleration phase is effectively irrelevant to the notional "habitat ring".

"How large" is a relative question. You have two additional factors to consider; how fast do you want the habitat ring to spin (RPM), how fast you want the exterior of the ring to move relative to the plane (m/s). The higher the radius, the lower the other values need to be (but presumably the higher the mass of your design).
 
Back
Top Bottom