PLEASE stop the way space stations ROTATE

[Riktar]

Do we need to argue about centrifugal vs. inertia vs. centripetal, now?

I don't understand the maths, but I can troll, if that's helpful.

Or maybe we could see if Enders Law offers an explanation to the station rotation,,,,,,,,,,

 

[AluminumAlloy]

Objects in space do not stop moving.

 

[{SAS}Stalker]

game uninstalled, all dreams shattered

 

[Space Fan]

But it isn't implausible to believe the station's engineers can correct it's vector at small enough intervals to make it seem like it is a single fluid vector.

But it requires a torque to rotate the spin-axis, because that means a change in angular momentum - so you would have to physically *drive* the space-station spin-axis around to keep facing the planet.

Thanks OP - now I see why sometimes (hey, usually) they don't face the planet.

My nurse is calling now. Better go..

 

[Apos]

game uninstalled, all dreams shattered

One less slaver backer. Good job OP!

 

[bootsam]

/threadpalm

 

[Bruce Warren]

Deleted post on account of being incorrect.

 

[Surly_Badger]

Solution is simple:

Learn to pilot.

 

[mossfoot]

I happen to know an engineer who works for NASA (no joke). So I asked her. Here's her comments:

Based on my understanding, it doesn't matter what orientation the station has to the planet. The spinning is what creates the sensation of gravity. So, if the ring of the station were oriented perpendicular to the station and the entrance were one the outside or side of the ring, your friend would be correct. But if the station were essentially parallel to the planet, then you could put the entrance on the side of the ring closest to the planet...or in the center closest to the planet and have it always face the planet.

 

[Iskariot]

OP, I don't care.

 

[Nagual]

Have you ever held a wheel in your hands and spun in, or used a power tool that is rotating very fast? They try to move it without it spinning madly all over the place.. wonder if it's like that.

 

[mossfoot]

OP, I don't care.

[video=youtube;flBqojLpAnI]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=flBqojLpAnI[/video]

Had to be done

 

[Space Fan]

Yes it does, but I'm saying that there's no reason why that single axis and single spin speed shouldn't allow the station to appear to rotate as far as the incoming spaceship is concerned while still facing the planet. Trying to visualize the actual motion of the station makes my head hurt but I hope you see what I'm saying here.

Consider a man standing on the moon. Let's say he's on the side that faces the earth. If he stands still and does nothing he's already in a rotation since the moon must rotate once every orbit to stay facing the earth.

Suppose the man decides to turn around on the spot. The resultant motion will indeed be in a third direction, but as far as the man is concerned he's unaware of this,. Suppose Mr Armstrong had a sudden fancy to be a ballerina and spins on his toes. From his point of view he's simply turned on the spot. The motion of the moon has not prevented this.

The moon is a bit unique though, in that it is an extended body, and relatively close to Earth. Because it bulges a bit in the direction of Earth, our gravity automatically exerts a small turning effect on it (tidal force essentially) that keeps it - roughly - with the same side facing us. A space station is too small to exhibit this behaviour.

Note that, due to its elliptical orbit, the moon doesn't quite do this accurately - it librates (the near side slowly wobbles with respect to us.)

Great post OP.

Now matron has turned up, I really have to go..

 

[OnePercent]

The Moon does it. Why can't a space station?

The moon is tidally locked gravitationally with the earth, A station is no where near as massive as the moon

- - - Updated - - -

Wow, never though about it. But from a physics standpoint you are correct

They do it like this because the original did it like that

- - - Updated - - -



That doesn't work when it's already spinning on some other axis.

Helicopters can do it just fine, Apply the same physics to a rotating body in space, Space stations should have correctional thrusters specifically timed to always have the entrance facing the planet.

 

[babelfisch]

I happen to know an engineer who works for NASA (no joke). So I asked her. Here's her comments:

Could you also ask here about my cat-washing-machine levitation experiment? She doesn't want to enter and still can't figure out a way to make her run in the right direction. Tuna maybe?

 

[OnePercent]

IIRC comm sats manage to point toward the same spot as they orbit around Earth.

Comm sats are tiny and aren't rotating so it's easy to keep them aligned facing the earth.

 

[Cody]

Could you also ask here about my cat-washing-machine levitation experiment? She doesn't want to enter and still can't figure out a way to make her run in the right direction. Tuna maybe?

What... a tuna swimming in the washing machine?

 

[mossfoot]

Could you also ask here about my cat-washing-machine levitation experiment? She doesn't want to enter and still can't figure out a way to make her run in the right direction. Tuna maybe?

Actually we're chatting about station radius and rotation in relation to nausea right now

 

[Space Fan]

The other problem, despite great arguments about the Moon tidally locked etc., is that we mustn't forget we actually *want* the space stations to rotate - to provide artificial gravity.

So it's quite a problem. You can't just go with a very slow synchronised rotation period like the Moon.

Regarding the cat, just put it on rinse. That quietens them down.

 

[OnePercent]

With the price of fuel in the year 3301 it's trivial to keep a station facing the planet by creating Precession on the rotating body at specifically timed points on the station to give a similar effect to how helicopters can align their rotors (which are spinning very rapidly) to become parallel to any point of reference, AKA Banking, Pitching etc.