Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Thoughts on cooking in microgravity
32 views
Skip to first unread message
Jessica
May 2, 2013, 1:04:50 PM5/2/13
to
As time goes by and mankind's semi-permanent residency in microgravity
enters its second decade, thoughts turn to the logistics of permanent
residency in space habitats. Once cannot be self-sufficient anywhere
without producing one's own food. Currently the ISS is totally supplied
from the ground, and a great deal of effort has gone into selecting
foodstuffs which are resistant to spoilage, easy to eat and need minimal
preparation given the still rather primitive facilities aboard the
station. Chris Hadfield's recent extremely popular videos show that space
food is roughly equivalent to camping food:
<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AZx0RIV0wss"> bagged,
<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P5FuPC6nsH0"> dehydrated,
<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ZnUSoa5p6s"> pouched,
<"http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EtaWWCXbtbY"> tinned,
<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W1lkeM6YoqU"> tubed and boxed.
All of these items must be produced on Earth and flown up to the station.
But how is a permanent, self-sufficient facility going to cope with the
tasks of preparing food from raw ingredients? How do you crack an egg into
a bowl of water and add flour to make your tortillas? How do you peel and
chop an onion without little flecks of onion skin and juice getting all
over everywhere? How do you fry your pancakes? How do you roast your meat?
Steaming vegetables is fairly easy. Using solar heat to boil water is
trivial. Pumping the steam into an enclosed cooking vessel is equally
trivial, so steamed vegetables will likely become a staple of our
habitat's inhabitants' diet. Perhaps even steamed dumplings with meat or
bean fillings such as are extremely popular in China could be done with
little difficulty (assuming the problem of mixing up the dough is solved).
I imagine that steaming will replace boiling as the best and most
efficient cooking method.
Roasting is not terribly difficult. Assuming the availability of an
enclosed toaster-oven like structure, one could impale their piece of meat
on a skewer which would then anchor in place inside the oven, and probably
turn to revolve the meat past the heat source(s). The drips would be dealt
with through a small convection fan equipped with a grease trap. Problems
arise with the prospect of cutting the roast after it's cooked and dealing
with the inevitable juices which accompany roast beast. It may be likely
that roasted meats will be extremely rare. A more manageable meal would be
shish-kabab, alternating meats, mushrooms and vegetable chunks threaded on
the skewers and roasted. The skewer would be anchored to the eating
surface and each chunk taken off individually to be eaten. Even if you
can't use a traditional dry heat oven, microwave ovens have been around
for long enough that everyone knows how to use them. They're compact,
simple to use and put much less of a burden on the station's electrical
power.
Barbecue is likely impossible. For one thing, there's no back yard in a
space station, open flames behave very strangely in microgravity and that
doesn't get near the problem of keeping the charcoal contained and the
food on the grille. An important component of barbecuing is the drips of
fat and sauces which fall onto the coals and burn, flavouring the food. In
microgravity that won't happen. Barbecue is a pleasure reserved for
gravity.
Frying presents huge challenges. How do you get your pork chop to stay on
the frying pan? Once your egg is cracked, how do you put it on the pan?
Indeed, how do you get it out of its shell in the first place? How do you
keep yourself from floating into contact with the pan and burning
yourself? One possible method to solve the adherence and safety problems
is to enclose your frying pan in a centrifuge so that it may spin to mimic
gravity. The pan would have to tilt as the spin accelerates, to prevent
whatever is frying from sliding off the outside edge. It may even be a
good idea to put a rim and lid on the pan to keep everything within.
Ideally there would be two pans rotating in opposite directions to counter
the effects of torque. The speed of rotation would depend on the viscosity
of whatever is being cooked. Pancake batter is fairly thick, and so would
only need a relatively slow spin. The pork chop would need something
approaching one g in order to cook properly. You'd have to stop the spin
halfway through cooking so you can flip the food over and cook the other
side.
And how do you get your pancake mixed in the first place? Flour is exactly
the wrong thing to have floating loose about your pantry and getting into
literally everywhere so it would need to be contained at all times. And
how do you persuade it to sit in the measuring cup so you know that you've
scooped out enough for your recipe? Mixing solids and liquids in
microgravity is an entirely different prospect than it is here on Earth.
Open bowls are completely unsatisfactory, as are electric mixers which
would only serve to spread partially-mixed blobs of dough over every
available surface in the galley, including the cooks. Currently, dry
powders are mixed with water in plastic pouches. The water is injected
(hot or cold as necessary) into the pouch and the contents kneaded
together until the mixing is complete. This works well in the short term,
but plastic does not last forever and it won't be long until our kneading
bags are wrinkled, worn and ready to tear at the worst possible moment.
And how do you get the previous mixture out of the bag when you want to
mix up something else? Supplies of washing water are limited and in any
case what do you use for a sink? Another bag? A watertight glove box?
Ultrasonics? Exposure to vacuum and then flaking off the dried bits
remaining?
And that brings up doing the cleanup after the cooking is finished. Doing
the dishes in space is yet another chore which will have to be re-
invented. It's a bonus that you're unlikely to drop a plate on your toes,
but washing things in batches by hand as it is done here on Earth will be
prohibitive given the need to constantly keep everything tethered or
controlled. Washing one piece at a time is a great way to spend far more
time than there is in a day. Dishwashers would work in a similar manner as
they do in a gravity field, except for the need to vacuum out the washing
water when the cycle is finished but once again that presumes that there
will be sufficient water available to use for such tasks. You must take
care in loading and unloading. A glass won't drop on your foot if you let
it go, but it may fly away and smash against the far bulkhead instead.
Speaking of pork chops and roast beasts, they're actually pretty unlikely
foods to be produced in space. Animal husbandry is yet another field of
endeavour which will need to be re-invented. Farming in microgravity would
be difficult. Keeping the animals healthy so they grow properly would be a
more than full-time task, and that presumes that they'll adapt and learn
to feed themselves. It's much more likely that meat produced in space
would be from smaller animals such as rabbits, fish, guinea pigs and the
like. Birds may adapt well to microgravity, so chicken could likely be a
large part of the menu or the current experiments in growing tissue in
vitro may pay off and avoid the necessity of dealing with animals at all,
except in the abstract.
There, that ought to be enough to spark off a good discussion. Thoughts
anyone?
enters its second decade, thoughts turn to the logistics of permanent
residency in space habitats. Once cannot be self-sufficient anywhere
without producing one's own food. Currently the ISS is totally supplied
from the ground, and a great deal of effort has gone into selecting
foodstuffs which are resistant to spoilage, easy to eat and need minimal
preparation given the still rather primitive facilities aboard the
station. Chris Hadfield's recent extremely popular videos show that space
food is roughly equivalent to camping food:
<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AZx0RIV0wss"> bagged,
<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P5FuPC6nsH0"> dehydrated,
<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ZnUSoa5p6s"> pouched,
<"http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EtaWWCXbtbY"> tinned,
<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W1lkeM6YoqU"> tubed and boxed.
All of these items must be produced on Earth and flown up to the station.
But how is a permanent, self-sufficient facility going to cope with the
tasks of preparing food from raw ingredients? How do you crack an egg into
a bowl of water and add flour to make your tortillas? How do you peel and
chop an onion without little flecks of onion skin and juice getting all
over everywhere? How do you fry your pancakes? How do you roast your meat?
Steaming vegetables is fairly easy. Using solar heat to boil water is
trivial. Pumping the steam into an enclosed cooking vessel is equally
trivial, so steamed vegetables will likely become a staple of our
habitat's inhabitants' diet. Perhaps even steamed dumplings with meat or
bean fillings such as are extremely popular in China could be done with
little difficulty (assuming the problem of mixing up the dough is solved).
I imagine that steaming will replace boiling as the best and most
efficient cooking method.
Roasting is not terribly difficult. Assuming the availability of an
enclosed toaster-oven like structure, one could impale their piece of meat
on a skewer which would then anchor in place inside the oven, and probably
turn to revolve the meat past the heat source(s). The drips would be dealt
with through a small convection fan equipped with a grease trap. Problems
arise with the prospect of cutting the roast after it's cooked and dealing
with the inevitable juices which accompany roast beast. It may be likely
that roasted meats will be extremely rare. A more manageable meal would be
shish-kabab, alternating meats, mushrooms and vegetable chunks threaded on
the skewers and roasted. The skewer would be anchored to the eating
surface and each chunk taken off individually to be eaten. Even if you
can't use a traditional dry heat oven, microwave ovens have been around
for long enough that everyone knows how to use them. They're compact,
simple to use and put much less of a burden on the station's electrical
power.
Barbecue is likely impossible. For one thing, there's no back yard in a
space station, open flames behave very strangely in microgravity and that
doesn't get near the problem of keeping the charcoal contained and the
food on the grille. An important component of barbecuing is the drips of
fat and sauces which fall onto the coals and burn, flavouring the food. In
microgravity that won't happen. Barbecue is a pleasure reserved for
gravity.
Frying presents huge challenges. How do you get your pork chop to stay on
the frying pan? Once your egg is cracked, how do you put it on the pan?
Indeed, how do you get it out of its shell in the first place? How do you
keep yourself from floating into contact with the pan and burning
yourself? One possible method to solve the adherence and safety problems
is to enclose your frying pan in a centrifuge so that it may spin to mimic
gravity. The pan would have to tilt as the spin accelerates, to prevent
whatever is frying from sliding off the outside edge. It may even be a
good idea to put a rim and lid on the pan to keep everything within.
Ideally there would be two pans rotating in opposite directions to counter
the effects of torque. The speed of rotation would depend on the viscosity
of whatever is being cooked. Pancake batter is fairly thick, and so would
only need a relatively slow spin. The pork chop would need something
approaching one g in order to cook properly. You'd have to stop the spin
halfway through cooking so you can flip the food over and cook the other
side.
And how do you get your pancake mixed in the first place? Flour is exactly
the wrong thing to have floating loose about your pantry and getting into
literally everywhere so it would need to be contained at all times. And
how do you persuade it to sit in the measuring cup so you know that you've
scooped out enough for your recipe? Mixing solids and liquids in
microgravity is an entirely different prospect than it is here on Earth.
Open bowls are completely unsatisfactory, as are electric mixers which
would only serve to spread partially-mixed blobs of dough over every
available surface in the galley, including the cooks. Currently, dry
powders are mixed with water in plastic pouches. The water is injected
(hot or cold as necessary) into the pouch and the contents kneaded
together until the mixing is complete. This works well in the short term,
but plastic does not last forever and it won't be long until our kneading
bags are wrinkled, worn and ready to tear at the worst possible moment.
And how do you get the previous mixture out of the bag when you want to
mix up something else? Supplies of washing water are limited and in any
case what do you use for a sink? Another bag? A watertight glove box?
Ultrasonics? Exposure to vacuum and then flaking off the dried bits
remaining?
And that brings up doing the cleanup after the cooking is finished. Doing
the dishes in space is yet another chore which will have to be re-
invented. It's a bonus that you're unlikely to drop a plate on your toes,
but washing things in batches by hand as it is done here on Earth will be
prohibitive given the need to constantly keep everything tethered or
controlled. Washing one piece at a time is a great way to spend far more
time than there is in a day. Dishwashers would work in a similar manner as
they do in a gravity field, except for the need to vacuum out the washing
water when the cycle is finished but once again that presumes that there
will be sufficient water available to use for such tasks. You must take
care in loading and unloading. A glass won't drop on your foot if you let
it go, but it may fly away and smash against the far bulkhead instead.
Speaking of pork chops and roast beasts, they're actually pretty unlikely
foods to be produced in space. Animal husbandry is yet another field of
endeavour which will need to be re-invented. Farming in microgravity would
be difficult. Keeping the animals healthy so they grow properly would be a
more than full-time task, and that presumes that they'll adapt and learn
to feed themselves. It's much more likely that meat produced in space
would be from smaller animals such as rabbits, fish, guinea pigs and the
like. Birds may adapt well to microgravity, so chicken could likely be a
large part of the menu or the current experiments in growing tissue in
vitro may pay off and avoid the necessity of dealing with animals at all,
except in the abstract.
There, that ought to be enough to spark off a good discussion. Thoughts
anyone?
invalidd
May 2, 2013, 1:38:40 PM5/2/13
to
Humans can't survive for long in low gravity because of the loss of bone
density. One solution is for spaceships to spin about an axis. With
gravity, all the other problems are solved.
density. One solution is for spaceships to spin about an axis. With
gravity, all the other problems are solved.
JimP.
May 2, 2013, 4:45:16 PM5/2/13
to
structures rotating at 1 G. I understand such rotation is part of some
ship designs still.
Also, the Coriolis Effect is a bear if your head and feet are rotating
around an axis at slightly different rates.
.
JimP.
--
Brushing aside the thorns so I can see the stars.
http://www.linuxgazette.net/ Linux Gazette
http://dice.drivein-jim.net/ my dice collection
http://poetry.drivein-jim.net/ Aug 26, 2009
MajorOz
May 2, 2013, 6:06:17 PM5/2/13
to
On Thursday, May 2, 2013 3:45:16 PM UTC-5, JimP. wrote:
> On Thu, 02 May 2013 18:38:40 +0100, invalidd
>
> <inva...@invalidd.invalidd> wrote:
>
> >Humans can't survive for long in low gravity because of the loss of bone
>
> >density. One solution is for spaceships to spin about an axis. With
>
> >gravity, all the other problems are solved.
>
>
>
> Willey Ley's spaceships for the trip to Mars, had parts of their
>
> structures rotating at 1 G. I understand such rotation is part of some
>
> ship designs still.
>
> Also, the Coriolis Effect is a bear if your head and feet are rotating
>
> around an axis at slightly different rates.
Makes ya wonder of all yer blood will just go up and down one side of the body, necessitating spending half the day looking one way and half the other.
> On Thu, 02 May 2013 18:38:40 +0100, invalidd
>
> <inva...@invalidd.invalidd> wrote:
>
> >Humans can't survive for long in low gravity because of the loss of bone
>
> >density. One solution is for spaceships to spin about an axis. With
>
> >gravity, all the other problems are solved.
>
>
>
> Willey Ley's spaceships for the trip to Mars, had parts of their
>
> structures rotating at 1 G. I understand such rotation is part of some
>
> ship designs still.
>
> Also, the Coriolis Effect is a bear if your head and feet are rotating
>
> around an axis at slightly different rates.
As to zg cooking.......methinks there is a John Varley story in there somewhere....
Chris Zakes
May 2, 2013, 8:24:32 PM5/2/13
to
On Thu, 02 May 2013 15:45:16 -0500, an orbital mind-control laser
caused JimP. <pongb...@cableone.net> to write:
>On Thu, 02 May 2013 18:38:40 +0100, invalidd
><inva...@invalidd.invalidd> wrote:
>>Humans can't survive for long in low gravity because of the loss of bone
>>density. One solution is for spaceships to spin about an axis. With
>>gravity, all the other problems are solved.
>
>Willey Ley's spaceships for the trip to Mars, had parts of their
>structures rotating at 1 G. I understand such rotation is part of some
>ship designs still.
Like the ones in the 2001 and 2010 movies?
caused JimP. <pongb...@cableone.net> to write:
>On Thu, 02 May 2013 18:38:40 +0100, invalidd
><inva...@invalidd.invalidd> wrote:
>>Humans can't survive for long in low gravity because of the loss of bone
>>density. One solution is for spaceships to spin about an axis. With
>>gravity, all the other problems are solved.
>
>Willey Ley's spaceships for the trip to Mars, had parts of their
>structures rotating at 1 G. I understand such rotation is part of some
>ship designs still.
-Chris Zakes
Texas
--
Two things I have ever respected are warmth and the ability to sit still.
-Mayland Long in "Tea With the Black Dragon" by R.A. MacAvoy
Chris Zakes
May 2, 2013, 8:30:56 PM5/2/13
to
On Thu, 2 May 2013 17:04:50 +0000 (UTC), an orbital mind-control
laser caused Jessica <m...@privacy.net> to write:
>As time goes by and mankind's semi-permanent residency in microgravity
>enters its second decade, thoughts turn to the logistics of permanent
>residency in space habitats. Once cannot be self-sufficient anywhere
>without producing one's own food.
(snip a bunch of very thought-provoking stuff)
laser caused Jessica <m...@privacy.net> to write:
>As time goes by and mankind's semi-permanent residency in microgravity
>enters its second decade, thoughts turn to the logistics of permanent
>residency in space habitats. Once cannot be self-sufficient anywhere
>without producing one's own food.
Many of these problems will go away once we start building *real*
space habitats, rather than the current ISS, which can't hold more
than half a dozen people for very long.
But you need a habitat that is big enough to rotate so that
centrifugal force can substitute for gravity. In the meantime, I'm
afraid our astronauts and cosmonauts will be stuck with "camper food."
Mike Duffy
May 2, 2013, 10:57:50 PM5/2/13
to
Jessica <m...@privacy.net> wrote in news:klu6bh$7ov$1...@dont-email.me:
> There, that ought to be enough to spark off a good discussion.
> Thoughts anyone?
Good points, but we should really be looking at new ways to cook in
microgravity instead of trying to emulate the effects of gravity.
For example, imagine the sponge cake you can get if bubbles don't want to
go anywhere. Imagine roasted meatballs without the little flat over-cooked
circles. Imagine alternate layers of oil and vinegar in a salad dressing.
Imagine how you would make an upside-down cake.
And if you can afford the mass loss, imagine the incredible effects of
lowering the boiling point instantly by exposing the food to hard vacuum.
Making pop-corn or puffed-wheat at sea level requires a certain amount of
heat. But I'm pretty sure that anything can be puffed or popped with very
little endothermic reactions in the food if you simply open an airlock.
--
http://pages.videotron.ca/duffym/index.htm
> There, that ought to be enough to spark off a good discussion.
> Thoughts anyone?
microgravity instead of trying to emulate the effects of gravity.
For example, imagine the sponge cake you can get if bubbles don't want to
go anywhere. Imagine roasted meatballs without the little flat over-cooked
circles. Imagine alternate layers of oil and vinegar in a salad dressing.
Imagine how you would make an upside-down cake.
And if you can afford the mass loss, imagine the incredible effects of
lowering the boiling point instantly by exposing the food to hard vacuum.
Making pop-corn or puffed-wheat at sea level requires a certain amount of
heat. But I'm pretty sure that anything can be puffed or popped with very
little endothermic reactions in the food if you simply open an airlock.
--
http://pages.videotron.ca/duffym/index.htm
Barry Gold
May 3, 2013, 1:33:29 AM5/3/13
to
An egg tends to maintain a fair amount of integrity -- the white has a
lot of surface tension and glueyness. So crack the egg open, scoop up
the insides in your hand, put into a closed container with flour, water,
and other ingredients, and shake. (Or have a Mixmaster-like arrangement
on a spinning wheel to get the right effect.)
Peeling onions will require care, but I suspect we can build devices to
do it. Chopping.... search Amazon for EHC650B or "quick chopper" or
"farberware professional purple hand food chopper" (without the quotes).
A small food processor also takes care of: mixing, grinding, whipping, etc.
Carving roast meat: do it next to a hood with an exhaust fan to pull up
the juices.
BBQ: spin the BBQ
Frying: suspend the meat (or put it on a skewer as for roasting) and
spray hot oil on it. Use a fan to move the oil around and recirculate it.
Or perhaps just spin the whole kitchen, and maybe the dining area.
lot of surface tension and glueyness. So crack the egg open, scoop up
the insides in your hand, put into a closed container with flour, water,
and other ingredients, and shake. (Or have a Mixmaster-like arrangement
on a spinning wheel to get the right effect.)
Peeling onions will require care, but I suspect we can build devices to
do it. Chopping.... search Amazon for EHC650B or "quick chopper" or
"farberware professional purple hand food chopper" (without the quotes).
A small food processor also takes care of: mixing, grinding, whipping, etc.
Carving roast meat: do it next to a hood with an exhaust fan to pull up
the juices.
BBQ: spin the BBQ
Frying: suspend the meat (or put it on a skewer as for roasting) and
spray hot oil on it. Use a fan to move the oil around and recirculate it.
Or perhaps just spin the whole kitchen, and maybe the dining area.
Tesseract
May 3, 2013, 9:49:30 AM5/3/13
to
colony. Think ship or submarine or Antarctic research station. So most
foods will already be at least semi-processed. All water will be
recycled. There will be some losses but without it missions will be
days, not months. The oxygen also needs to be recycled. Since
photosynthesis is a good way to get oxygen back from carbon dioxide ,
the station may have some plants, so the diet could be supplemented with
some fresh fruits or vegetables or herbs, though the main plant would be
whatever is most efficient at converting CO2 back to O2, and may not be
all that edible.
Prep-work would be done in something like a fume hood with a down draft,
down being defined by the work surface. For frying, the cooking surface
would be the inside surface of a spinning cylinder. You could even have
curved frying pans to fit on the curved heating elements. Or you could
cook both sides at the same time, as with a waffle iron or sandwich grill.
Of course you would have eating utensils but cups and glasses would
become sippy cups, plates would go and bowls would need to be
reinvented. Nothing without some kind of a lid would even make sense.
The proper way to do this would be to tender a supply contract. A
company like McDonald's or Subway or Tim Horton's, or maybe a kitchen
appliance company, would come up with a way for the right profit incentive.
--
Tesseract
Jessica
May 3, 2013, 1:09:22 PM5/3/13
to
On Thu, 02 May 2013 22:33:29 -0700, Barry Gold wrote:
> Peeling onions will require care, but I suspect we can build devices to
> do it. Chopping.... search Amazon for EHC650B or "quick chopper" or
> "farberware professional purple hand food chopper" (without the quotes).
> A small food processor also takes care of: mixing, grinding, whipping,
> etc.
Onions in space can be done:
> Peeling onions will require care, but I suspect we can build devices to
> do it. Chopping.... search Amazon for EHC650B or "quick chopper" or
> "farberware professional purple hand food chopper" (without the quotes).
> A small food processor also takes care of: mixing, grinding, whipping,
> etc.
<https://twitter.com/Cmdr_Hadfield/status/329882960033624065/photo/1>
And they still make you cry:
<https://twitter.com/Cmdr_Hadfield/status/329975399658438658>
> Or perhaps just spin the whole kitchen, and maybe the dining area.
preparation. As soon as habitats get large enough that'll be the way
things will be.
That onion picture was what triggered these ideas. If they can do an onion
right now, there's no reason they can't do real camp cooking up there
(except of course for all the Bureaucrats' obstructionism).
JimP.
May 3, 2013, 4:44:39 PM5/3/13
to
On Thu, 02 May 2013 19:24:32 -0500, Chris Zakes <dont...@gmail.com>
wrote:
I found were not them. There was a show on Disney's Wonderful Wrld of
Color on Sunday nights that took most of the hour showing them.
Large wheel like structure, with a long thin pole downward from the
center. At the bottom of the pole was a nuclear reactor.
Small ships took passeners, doctors, etc. between the large ships. A
group of ships went in the animation, not just one like is planned
now.
wrote:
>On Thu, 02 May 2013 15:45:16 -0500, an orbital mind-control laser
>caused JimP. <pongb...@cableone.net> to write:
>
>>On Thu, 02 May 2013 18:38:40 +0100, invalidd
>><inva...@invalidd.invalidd> wrote:
>>>Humans can't survive for long in low gravity because of the loss of bone
>>>density. One solution is for spaceships to spin about an axis. With
>>>gravity, all the other problems are solved.
>>
>>Willey Ley's spaceships for the trip to Mars, had parts of their
>>structures rotating at 1 G. I understand such rotation is part of some
>>ship designs still.
>
>Like the ones in the 2001 and 2010 movies?
Much bigger ships. I would love to find drawings online, but the ones
>caused JimP. <pongb...@cableone.net> to write:
>
>>On Thu, 02 May 2013 18:38:40 +0100, invalidd
>><inva...@invalidd.invalidd> wrote:
>>>Humans can't survive for long in low gravity because of the loss of bone
>>>density. One solution is for spaceships to spin about an axis. With
>>>gravity, all the other problems are solved.
>>
>>Willey Ley's spaceships for the trip to Mars, had parts of their
>>structures rotating at 1 G. I understand such rotation is part of some
>>ship designs still.
>
>Like the ones in the 2001 and 2010 movies?
I found were not them. There was a show on Disney's Wonderful Wrld of
Color on Sunday nights that took most of the hour showing them.
Large wheel like structure, with a long thin pole downward from the
center. At the bottom of the pole was a nuclear reactor.
Small ships took passeners, doctors, etc. between the large ships. A
group of ships went in the animation, not just one like is planned
now.
invalidd
May 4, 2013, 7:45:55 AM5/4/13
to
JimP. wrote:
> On Thu, 02 May 2013 18:38:40 +0100, invalidd
> <inva...@invalidd.invalidd> wrote:
>
>>Humans can't survive for long in low gravity because of the loss of bone
>>density. One solution is for spaceships to spin about an axis. With
>>gravity, all the other problems are solved.
>
>
> Willey Ley's spaceships for the trip to Mars, had parts of their
> structures rotating at 1 G. I understand such rotation is part of some
> ship designs still.
>
> Also, the Coriolis Effect is a bear if your head and feet are rotating
> around an axis at slightly different rates.
> .
>
> JimP.
I guess reducing gravity will be a lot harder than increasing it, like
> On Thu, 02 May 2013 18:38:40 +0100, invalidd
> <inva...@invalidd.invalidd> wrote:
>
>>Humans can't survive for long in low gravity because of the loss of bone
>>density. One solution is for spaceships to spin about an axis. With
>>gravity, all the other problems are solved.
>
>
> Willey Ley's spaceships for the trip to Mars, had parts of their
> structures rotating at 1 G. I understand such rotation is part of some
> ship designs still.
>
> Also, the Coriolis Effect is a bear if your head and feet are rotating
> around an axis at slightly different rates.
> .
>
> JimP.
cooling is a lot harder than heating.
I wrote a story some years back.
Benign aliens on an exploration mission detected signs of intelligent
life from Earth and stopped by to monitor us from orbit for a while. A
spaceship malfunction forced them to land, but their bodies couldn't
cope with Earth gravity so they were confined within their ship's
gravity shielding. With no hope of rescue from their own kind, no
possibility of foraging for what they needed for repairs, and with a
directive not to allow their tech out of their control, they were facing
the prospect of having to press the self-destruct button. Despite their
discretion, they were discovered by a human who philalienthropically
acquired what they needed to get their spaceship operational enough to
limp home.
(Irrelevant to this discussion, the aliens broke their directive and
left a piece of tech for the human as a thank-you. Despite a steep
learning curve and a few semi-disasters, the human used the tech to
eventually improve the lives of himself and everyone around him, apart
from his ex-gf who dumped him just before the start of the story.)
So what are the chances of devising gravity shielding/reduction
technology so we can visit planets with a much larger mass than Earth?
And what will cups of tea taste like, since tea brewed at the top of
Everest tastes like crap?
Tesseract
May 4, 2013, 9:45:27 AM5/4/13
to
the Sun's surface, poking the flares and stuff to adjust the Earth's
weather. The trick was that, with the Sun's mass below them, they put a
small mass above them in their craft, which they accelerated to near
light speed to counteract the Sun's gravity.
--
Tesseract
invalidd
May 4, 2013, 10:45:09 AM5/4/13
to
Tesseract wrote:
>
> I remember reading a story years ago where people would fly around on
> the Sun's surface, poking the flares and stuff to adjust the Earth's
> weather. The trick was that, with the Sun's mass below them, they put a
> small mass above them in their craft, which they accelerated to near
> light speed to counteract the Sun's gravity.
>
Hmmm, local Lagrange point generation. Interesting. Thank you.
>
> I remember reading a story years ago where people would fly around on
> the Sun's surface, poking the flares and stuff to adjust the Earth's
> weather. The trick was that, with the Sun's mass below them, they put a
> small mass above them in their craft, which they accelerated to near
> light speed to counteract the Sun's gravity.
>
Mike Duffy
May 4, 2013, 11:18:05 AM5/4/13
to
invalidd <inva...@invalidd.invalidd> wrote in
news:km2sd1$48o$1...@speranza.aioe.org:
> ... tea brewed at the top of Everest tastes like crap
This implies that tea done in an Expresso machine should taste great.
Has anyone ever tried this? Also, a pressure cooker might work if you like
your lea "long-brewed".
--
http://pages.videotron.ca/duffym/index.htm
news:km2sd1$48o$1...@speranza.aioe.org:
> ... tea brewed at the top of Everest tastes like crap
This implies that tea done in an Expresso machine should taste great.
Has anyone ever tried this? Also, a pressure cooker might work if you like
your lea "long-brewed".
--
http://pages.videotron.ca/duffym/index.htm
Barry Gold
May 4, 2013, 11:45:06 AM5/4/13
to
On 5/4/2013 4:45 AM, invalidd wrote:
> So what are the chances of devising gravity shielding/reduction
> technology so we can visit planets with a much larger mass than Earth?
> And what will cups of tea taste like, since tea brewed at the top of
> Everest tastes like crap?
Our current understanding of the universe does not permit gravity
> So what are the chances of devising gravity shielding/reduction
> technology so we can visit planets with a much larger mass than Earth?
> And what will cups of tea taste like, since tea brewed at the top of
> Everest tastes like crap?
shielding or reduction. That may change if:
1. We actually find a graviton (carrier particle for the gravitic force)
or "gravity waves" (the wave equivalent)
2. Somebody manages to actually produce a "unified field theory" that
accounts for gravity as well as the current three: strong force, weak
force, electro-magnetic force.
3. There is a massive paradigm shift, a change in the way we see the
world, that lets us understand and manipulate gravity. This would be a
step as large as (a) Newton's law of universal gravitation (b)
Einstein's General Theory of Relativity, and/or (c) Quantum theory.
But as for tea... That has a lot more to do with pressure than with
gravity. Tea brewed on top of high mountains "tastes like crap" because
water boils at a much lower temperature. At the top of Everest, water
boils at 71C or 160F. That's a pretty significant decrease. Most forms
of cooking would also not work very well there:
. It would take much longer to boil or steam foods because of the
lower temperature
. Even roasting and suchlike would be more difficult because the
lower air pressure will make it more difficult to ignite and maintain a
fire. You might have to feed it oxygen (which you normally carry for
breathing, not for fires!) There's also the question of where you get
fuel for a fire. You'd have to carry it with you, as nothing grows up there.
If somebody strung electric wires up there, I imagine you could cook
food in a microwave, a waffle iron, etc. Or by radiant heat from an
electric element. But I don't see that happening any time soon, both
for practical reasons (expense to build and maintain, small number of
potential users) and political ones (can you spell Environmental Impact
Report?).
invalidd
May 4, 2013, 12:05:57 PM5/4/13
to
Barry Gold wrote:
> On 5/4/2013 4:45 AM, invalidd wrote:
>
>> So what are the chances of devising gravity shielding/reduction
>> technology so we can visit planets with a much larger mass than Earth?
>
> On 5/4/2013 4:45 AM, invalidd wrote:
>
>> So what are the chances of devising gravity shielding/reduction
>> technology so we can visit planets with a much larger mass than Earth?
>
> Our current understanding of the universe does not permit gravity
> shielding or reduction.
At Lagrange points, do objects perceive that they're subject to zero
> shielding or reduction.
gravity or two lots of gravity which equal each other?
JimP.
May 4, 2013, 2:56:31 PM5/4/13
to
On Sat, 04 May 2013 12:45:55 +0100, invalidd
<inva...@invalidd.invalidd> wrote:
>So what are the chances of devising gravity shielding/reduction
>technology so we can visit planets with a much larger mass than Earth?
>And what will cups of tea taste like, since tea brewed at the top of
>Everest tastes like crap?
I recently read that Absolute Zero, isn't. That small negative number
<inva...@invalidd.invalidd> wrote:
>So what are the chances of devising gravity shielding/reduction
>technology so we can visit planets with a much larger mass than Earth?
>And what will cups of tea taste like, since tea brewed at the top of
>Everest tastes like crap?
below Absolute Zero have been accomplished. I could be misrememberng,
but they did mention that small changes in gravity also accompanied
this negative numbers below Absolute Zero.
kevi...@yahoo.com
May 4, 2013, 4:31:41 PM5/4/13
to
On Thursday, May 2, 2013 1:04:50 PM UTC-4, Jessica wrote:
> There, that ought to be enough to spark off a good discussion. Thoughts
>
> anyone?
It looks like you've covered most of the bases. The problem with cooking in low or zero g is that things don't "work" as we've become accustomed. Passive convection doesn't happen without gravity, which leaves radiation and convection. Microwaves are limited by power constraints. A solar cooker with a Sterling engine driven fan to turn it into a convection oven might be the simplest; cooking with food sandwiched between racks or squeezed into molds may be an option; you've mention centrifuges.
> There, that ought to be enough to spark off a good discussion. Thoughts
>
> anyone?
Mixing may not be that difficult using plastic bags. Flour can be handled like mess-free toner, in special containers, except these are a cross between disposable baby-bottle liners with a simple flap valve to allow water injection. Eggs mean chickens, and that could prove . . . interesting. But you wouldn't have to crack the egg. Just puncture each end and blow the contents into a container.
Tim Merrigan
May 4, 2013, 5:19:10 PM5/4/13
to
On Sat, 04 May 2013 12:45:55 +0100, invalidd
<inva...@invalidd.invalidd> wrote:
<inva...@invalidd.invalidd> wrote:
of the lower air pressure and resultant lower boiling point of water,
not because of the lower gravity.
Chris Zakes
May 4, 2013, 8:44:41 PM5/4/13
to
fairly large holes in the eggshell or significantly greater air
pressure than most humans can generate.
kevi...@yahoo.com
May 4, 2013, 9:22:02 PM5/4/13
to
On Saturday, May 4, 2013 8:44:41 PM UTC-4, Chris Zakes wrote:
> Ever tried that trick? It's not as easy as it sounds. You either need
>
> fairly large holes in the eggshell or significantly greater air
>
> pressure than most humans can generate.
Uh, yes. It was to make puppets using egg shells as heads. It was part of a 1st Grade project. Ah, the days when no one really worried about salmonella and raw eggs. It was part of an art/reading project. A group came through and showed us how, and put on a performance using puppets built on the plans.
> Ever tried that trick? It's not as easy as it sounds. You either need
>
> fairly large holes in the eggshell or significantly greater air
>
> pressure than most humans can generate.
Tesseract
May 4, 2013, 10:24:11 PM5/4/13
to
On 04-May-13 11:56 AM, JimP. wrote:
> On Sat, 04 May 2013 12:45:55 +0100, invalidd
> <inva...@invalidd.invalidd> wrote:
>> So what are the chances of devising gravity shielding/reduction
>> technology so we can visit planets with a much larger mass than Earth?
>> And what will cups of tea taste like, since tea brewed at the top of
>> Everest tastes like crap?
>
> I recently read that Absolute Zero, isn't. That small negative number
> below Absolute Zero have been accomplished. I could be misrememberng,
> but they did mention that small changes in gravity also accompanied
> this negative numbers below Absolute Zero.
>
> JimP.
>
Temperature is a measure of motion -- atomic motion. At absolute zero
> On Sat, 04 May 2013 12:45:55 +0100, invalidd
> <inva...@invalidd.invalidd> wrote:
>> So what are the chances of devising gravity shielding/reduction
>> technology so we can visit planets with a much larger mass than Earth?
>> And what will cups of tea taste like, since tea brewed at the top of
>> Everest tastes like crap?
>
> I recently read that Absolute Zero, isn't. That small negative number
> below Absolute Zero have been accomplished. I could be misrememberng,
> but they did mention that small changes in gravity also accompanied
> this negative numbers below Absolute Zero.
>
> JimP.
>
there is no motion. Below absolute zero you would have negative motion.
What is negative motion?
--
Tesseract
Tesseract
May 4, 2013, 10:28:25 PM5/4/13
to
On 04-May-13 4:45 AM, invalidd wrote:
> JimP. wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 02 May 2013 18:38:40 +0100, invalidd
>> <inva...@invalidd.invalidd> wrote:
>>
>>> Humans can't survive for long in low gravity because of the loss of
>>> bone density. One solution is for spaceships to spin about an axis.
>>> With gravity, all the other problems are solved.
>>
>>
>> Willey Ley's spaceships for the trip to Mars, had parts of their
>> structures rotating at 1 G. I understand such rotation is part of some
>> ship designs still.
>>
>> Also, the Coriolis Effect is a bear if your head and feet are rotating
>> around an axis at slightly different rates.
>> .
>>
>> JimP.
>
> I guess reducing gravity will be a lot harder than increasing it, like
> cooling is a lot harder than heating.
>
> I wrote a story some years back.
>
> Benign aliens on an exploration mission
So far we have the beginnings of an interesting science fiction story.
> JimP. wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 02 May 2013 18:38:40 +0100, invalidd
>> <inva...@invalidd.invalidd> wrote:
>>
>>> Humans can't survive for long in low gravity because of the loss of
>>> bone density. One solution is for spaceships to spin about an axis.
>>> With gravity, all the other problems are solved.
>>
>>
>> Willey Ley's spaceships for the trip to Mars, had parts of their
>> structures rotating at 1 G. I understand such rotation is part of some
>> ship designs still.
>>
>> Also, the Coriolis Effect is a bear if your head and feet are rotating
>> around an axis at slightly different rates.
>> .
>>
>> JimP.
>
> I guess reducing gravity will be a lot harder than increasing it, like
> cooling is a lot harder than heating.
>
> I wrote a story some years back.
>
> Benign aliens on an exploration mission
> detected signs of intelligent
> life from Earth
...
--
Tesseract
Frank McCoy
May 4, 2013, 10:55:43 PM5/4/13
to
No, you can't get absolute-zero temperature because that would be a
singularity; since temperature is a logarithmic scale, not a linear
one.
(Supposedly a black-hole is both infinitely hot AND infinitely cold at
the same time; depending on which definition you use. It can't get
any colder, even though it's infinitely hot; therefore it's infinitely
cold as well. A neutron-star is in a similar condition; though not
nearly as extreme. The Pauli-Exclusion-Principle won't let it get any
colder; because that would mean that several parts were at the same
energy-level; even though it's at millions of degrees.)
However, you can get a state that absorbs motion while losing energy
instead of gaining it, under certain conditions set up externally.
Not *really* negative-energy; but ....
The *system* gains energy, even if some components lose it.
So, there's no violation of the laws of thermodynamics.
It's amazing the things you can do with things like lasers these days.
--
_____
/ ' / ™
,-/-, __ __. ____ /_
(_/ / (_(_/|_/ / <_/ <_
Jessica
May 4, 2013, 11:36:47 PM5/4/13
to
On Sat, 04 May 2013 19:44:41 -0500, Chris Zakes wrote:
> Ever tried that trick? It's not as easy as it sounds. You either need
> fairly large holes in the eggshell or significantly greater air pressure
> than most humans can generate.
That's easily enough to accomplish. There's more than enough pressure
> Ever tried that trick? It's not as easy as it sounds. You either need
> fairly large holes in the eggshell or significantly greater air pressure
> than most humans can generate.
gradient available just on the other side of the bulkhead.
invalidd
May 5, 2013, 5:07:55 AM5/5/13
to
:)
JimP.
May 5, 2013, 8:31:22 AM5/5/13
to
invalidd
May 5, 2013, 10:04:45 AM5/5/13
to
JimP. wrote:
> On Sat, 04 May 2013 12:45:55 +0100, invalidd
> <inva...@invalidd.invalidd> wrote:
>
>>So what are the chances of devising gravity shielding/reduction
>>technology so we can visit planets with a much larger mass than Earth?
>>And what will cups of tea taste like, since tea brewed at the top of
>>Everest tastes like crap?
>
>
> I recently read that Absolute Zero, isn't. That small negative number
> below Absolute Zero have been accomplished. I could be misrememberng,
> but they did mention that small changes in gravity also accompanied
> this negative numbers below Absolute Zero.
>
> JimP.
I think it's still theoretical.
> On Sat, 04 May 2013 12:45:55 +0100, invalidd
> <inva...@invalidd.invalidd> wrote:
>
>>So what are the chances of devising gravity shielding/reduction
>>technology so we can visit planets with a much larger mass than Earth?
>>And what will cups of tea taste like, since tea brewed at the top of
>>Everest tastes like crap?
>
>
> I recently read that Absolute Zero, isn't. That small negative number
> below Absolute Zero have been accomplished. I could be misrememberng,
> but they did mention that small changes in gravity also accompanied
> this negative numbers below Absolute Zero.
>
> JimP.
When atoms have lost all their vibrational energy, they're at Absolute
Zero. However they still have rotational energy. If you stop them
rotating by applying a magnetic field, then supposedly they're below
Absolute Zero.
However, according to physical entropy considerations, they're
simultaneously infinitely hot!
Last time this came up, someone posted links to a couple of relevant
wikipedia pages.
Message has been deleted
Chris Zakes
May 5, 2013, 6:35:02 PM5/5/13
to
On Sat, 4 May 2013 18:22:02 -0700 (PDT), an orbital mind-control
Did it myself one year, to make an "Easter Tree" (like a Christmas
Tree, only with blown eggs instead of regular ornaments.)
According to my mom, her dad once did it with a single hole, by
*sucking* the egg out, rather than blowing. As you said,"Ah, the days
Tree, only with blown eggs instead of regular ornaments.)
According to my mom, her dad once did it with a single hole, by
*sucking* the egg out, rather than blowing. As you said,"Ah, the days
when no one really worried about salmonella and raw eggs."
Walter Bushell
May 6, 2013, 8:15:26 AM5/6/13
to
In article <km3bkl$feu$1...@speranza.aioe.org>,
For small objects they feel no effect. But there are tides for
sufficiently large objects. On the Gripping Hand, one assumes an
object at a Lagrange point is in free fall anyway so zero gravity.
Another thing is that there are stable and stable Lagrange points,
that is does a sufficiently small perturbation result in a return to
the point or not.
--
Gambling with Other People's Money is the meth of the fiscal industry.
me -- in the spirit of Karl and Groucho Marx
sufficiently large objects. On the Gripping Hand, one assumes an
object at a Lagrange point is in free fall anyway so zero gravity.
Another thing is that there are stable and stable Lagrange points,
that is does a sufficiently small perturbation result in a return to
the point or not.
--
Gambling with Other People's Money is the meth of the fiscal industry.
me -- in the spirit of Karl and Groucho Marx
invalidd
May 6, 2013, 11:18:07 AM5/6/13
to
Walter Bushell wrote:
> In article <km3bkl$feu$1...@speranza.aioe.org>,
> invalidd <inva...@invalidd.invalidd> wrote:
>
>
>>Barry Gold wrote:
>>
>>
>>>On 5/4/2013 4:45 AM, invalidd wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>So what are the chances of devising gravity shielding/reduction
>>>>technology so we can visit planets with a much larger mass than Earth?
>>>
>>>Our current understanding of the universe does not permit gravity
>>>shielding or reduction.
>>
>>At Lagrange points, do objects perceive that they're subject to zero
>>gravity or two lots of gravity which equal each other?
>
>
> For small objects they feel no effect. But there are tides for
> sufficiently large objects. On the Gripping Hand, one assumes an
> object at a Lagrange point is in free fall anyway so zero gravity.
> Another thing is that there are stable and stable Lagrange points,
> that is does a sufficiently small perturbation result in a return to
> the point or not.
>
What I'm trying to get my head around is whether it's like tying one
> In article <km3bkl$feu$1...@speranza.aioe.org>,
> invalidd <inva...@invalidd.invalidd> wrote:
>
>
>>Barry Gold wrote:
>>
>>
>>>On 5/4/2013 4:45 AM, invalidd wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>So what are the chances of devising gravity shielding/reduction
>>>>technology so we can visit planets with a much larger mass than Earth?
>>>
>>>Our current understanding of the universe does not permit gravity
>>>shielding or reduction.
>>
>>At Lagrange points, do objects perceive that they're subject to zero
>>gravity or two lots of gravity which equal each other?
>
>
> For small objects they feel no effect. But there are tides for
> sufficiently large objects. On the Gripping Hand, one assumes an
> object at a Lagrange point is in free fall anyway so zero gravity.
> Another thing is that there are stable and stable Lagrange points,
> that is does a sufficiently small perturbation result in a return to
> the point or not.
>
ankle to the rear bumper of one car and the other ankle to the rear
bumber of a second car. If the two cars try to drive away in opposite
directions, the person in the middle will experience zero net force but
will be ripped to pieces.
Prof. Godel Fishbreath
May 6, 2013, 1:56:55 PM5/6/13
to
I have been paying attention to some of the physics stuff on the web.
Yah, maybe not the best source but still not a trash source.
Those spin grav devices are impractical. To get 1 g, you have to spin
like crazy, resulting in a really heavy structure, and very strange
and strong Coriolis effects on people's heads. If you are willing to
settle for less grav, it could work. Having a planet or moon below you
would be better.
The (negative?) temp stuff is a result of the bottom being a tad
higher than the old expected and usual zero due to some quantum energy
effect that may be real hard to get around.
As I believe Barry said, do not look for anti grav devices outside of
fiction anytime soon.
Raising food in zero g will have its own set of problems, likely
solvable ones.
Maybe for many foods, cooking would not be an option. How much would
we lose if that is so? Could we go with processed algae bars?
Yah, maybe not the best source but still not a trash source.
Those spin grav devices are impractical. To get 1 g, you have to spin
like crazy, resulting in a really heavy structure, and very strange
and strong Coriolis effects on people's heads. If you are willing to
settle for less grav, it could work. Having a planet or moon below you
would be better.
The (negative?) temp stuff is a result of the bottom being a tad
higher than the old expected and usual zero due to some quantum energy
effect that may be real hard to get around.
As I believe Barry said, do not look for anti grav devices outside of
fiction anytime soon.
Raising food in zero g will have its own set of problems, likely
solvable ones.
Maybe for many foods, cooking would not be an option. How much would
we lose if that is so? Could we go with processed algae bars?
Frank McCoy
May 6, 2013, 6:08:43 PM5/6/13
to
Walter Bushell <pr...@panix.com> wrote:
>In article <km3bkl$feu$1...@speranza.aioe.org>,
> invalidd <inva...@invalidd.invalidd> wrote:
>
>> Barry Gold wrote:
>>
>> > On 5/4/2013 4:45 AM, invalidd wrote:
>> >
>> >> So what are the chances of devising gravity shielding/reduction
>> >> technology so we can visit planets with a much larger mass than Earth?
>> >
>> > Our current understanding of the universe does not permit gravity
>> > shielding or reduction.
>>
>> At Lagrange points, do objects perceive that they're subject to zero
>> gravity or two lots of gravity which equal each other?
>
>For small objects they feel no effect. But there are tides for
>sufficiently large objects. On the Gripping Hand, one assumes an
>object at a Lagrange point is in free fall anyway so zero gravity.
>Another thing is that there are stable and stable Lagrange points,
>that is does a sufficiently small perturbation result in a return to
>the point or not.
Tides can stretch you.
>In article <km3bkl$feu$1...@speranza.aioe.org>,
> invalidd <inva...@invalidd.invalidd> wrote:
>
>> Barry Gold wrote:
>>
>> > On 5/4/2013 4:45 AM, invalidd wrote:
>> >
>> >> So what are the chances of devising gravity shielding/reduction
>> >> technology so we can visit planets with a much larger mass than Earth?
>> >
>> > Our current understanding of the universe does not permit gravity
>> > shielding or reduction.
>>
>> At Lagrange points, do objects perceive that they're subject to zero
>> gravity or two lots of gravity which equal each other?
>
>For small objects they feel no effect. But there are tides for
>sufficiently large objects. On the Gripping Hand, one assumes an
>object at a Lagrange point is in free fall anyway so zero gravity.
>Another thing is that there are stable and stable Lagrange points,
>that is does a sufficiently small perturbation result in a return to
>the point or not.
The smaller the object and the more intense the field, the greater the
tide. Could kill you easily around a neutron star.
There are ways around THAT too.
Orbiting rotating things pulling out your middle can work.
For each stage of cancellation though, there's *always* a residual.
Frank McCoy
May 6, 2013, 6:12:59 PM5/6/13
to
"Prof. Godel Fishbreath" <seanea...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>I have been paying attention to some of the physics stuff on the web.
>Yah, maybe not the best source but still not a trash source.
>
>Those spin grav devices are impractical. To get 1 g, you have to spin
>like crazy, resulting in a really heavy structure, and very strange
>and strong Coriolis effects on people's heads. If you are willing to
>settle for less grav, it could work. Having a planet or moon below you
>would be better.
>
Actually, they can be quite practical.
>I have been paying attention to some of the physics stuff on the web.
>Yah, maybe not the best source but still not a trash source.
>
>Those spin grav devices are impractical. To get 1 g, you have to spin
>like crazy, resulting in a really heavy structure, and very strange
>and strong Coriolis effects on people's heads. If you are willing to
>settle for less grav, it could work. Having a planet or moon below you
>would be better.
>
Use a LONG tether strong enough to hold the entire living-space.
Stretch it out far enough; and the rotation-rate is slow-enough; while
the difference from top to bottom is small enough, that you just don't
HAVE any coriolis problems.
OR, just make the whole structure big enough.
Yes, it's possible and even practical with even 20th-century
materials. Just one HECK of a big project! (Read: Expensive)
>The (negative?) temp stuff is a result of the bottom being a tad
>higher than the old expected and usual zero due to some quantum energy
>effect that may be real hard to get around.
>
>As I believe Barry said, do not look for anti grav devices outside of
>fiction anytime soon.
>
>Raising food in zero g will have its own set of problems, likely
>solvable ones.
>Maybe for many foods, cooking would not be an option. How much would
>we lose if that is so? Could we go with processed algae bars?
>
Tesseract
May 7, 2013, 2:37:57 AM5/7/13
to
On 06-May-13 10:56 AM, Prof. Godel Fishbreath wrote:
> I have been paying attention to some of the physics stuff on the web.
> Yah, maybe not the best source but still not a trash source.
Actually, the web was created to disseminate physics stuff, so you are
> I have been paying attention to some of the physics stuff on the web.
> Yah, maybe not the best source but still not a trash source.
finally using it for what it was created for.
> Those spin grav devices are impractical. To get 1 g, you have to spin
> like crazy, resulting in a really heavy structure, and very strange
> and strong Coriolis effects on people's heads. If you are willing to
> settle for less grav, it could work. Having a planet or moon below you
> would be better.
>
> The (negative?) temp stuff is a result of the bottom being a tad
> higher than the old expected and usual zero due to some quantum energy
> effect that may be real hard to get around.
>
> As I believe Barry said, do not look for anti grav devices outside of
> fiction anytime soon.
>
> Raising food in zero g will have its own set of problems, likely
> solvable ones.
> Maybe for many foods, cooking would not be an option. How much would
> we lose if that is so? Could we go with processed algae bars?
>
>
Tesseract
Walter Bushell
May 7, 2013, 9:44:39 AM5/7/13
to
In article <km0r01$d52$1...@dont-email.me>, Jessica <m...@privacy.net>
wrote:
> > Or perhaps just spin the whole kitchen, and maybe the dining area.
Or have a small centrifuge for the actual cooking.
wrote:
> > Or perhaps just spin the whole kitchen, and maybe the dining area.
Or have a small centrifuge for the actual cooking.
Jessica
May 7, 2013, 1:32:54 PM5/7/13
to
On Tue, 07 May 2013 09:44:39 -0400, Walter Bushell wrote:
> In article <km0r01$d52$1...@dont-email.me>, Jessica <m...@privacy.net> wrote:
>
>> > Or perhaps just spin the whole kitchen, and maybe the dining area.
>
> Or have a small centrifuge for the actual cooking.
Check your attributions, Walter; Barry wrote that.
> In article <km0r01$d52$1...@dont-email.me>, Jessica <m...@privacy.net> wrote:
>
>> > Or perhaps just spin the whole kitchen, and maybe the dining area.
>
> Or have a small centrifuge for the actual cooking.
Chris Zakes
May 8, 2013, 7:52:05 AM5/8/13
to
On Tue, 07 May 2013 09:44:39 -0400, an orbital mind-control laser
caused Walter Bushell <pr...@panix.com> to write:
>In article <km0r01$d52$1...@dont-email.me>, Jessica <m...@privacy.net>
>wrote:
>
>> > Or perhaps just spin the whole kitchen, and maybe the dining area.
>
>Or have a small centrifuge for the actual cooking.
The problem with a "small" centrifuge is how fast it would need to
caused Walter Bushell <pr...@panix.com> to write:
>In article <km0r01$d52$1...@dont-email.me>, Jessica <m...@privacy.net>
>wrote:
>
>> > Or perhaps just spin the whole kitchen, and maybe the dining area.
>
>Or have a small centrifuge for the actual cooking.
spin to simulate a decent amount of gravity. Faster than a tumble
dryer? Probably. As fast as a front-load washer? They spin fast enough
to counter earth-normal gravity, so maybe not quite that fast.
But in either case, I don't think it'd be feasible to reach into a
moving centrifuge and try stirring whatever it is that you're cooking,
so they'd be of limited usefulness.
Jette Goldie
May 10, 2013, 6:05:14 PM5/10/13
to
On 02/05/2013 18:04, Jessica wrote:
>
> But how is a permanent, self-sufficient facility going to cope with the
> tasks of preparing food from raw ingredients? How do you crack an egg into
> a bowl of water and add flour to make your tortillas?
Some sort of enclosed container with a beater?
--
Jette Goldie
jgold...@btinternet.com
Living in the Future!
>
> But how is a permanent, self-sufficient facility going to cope with the
> tasks of preparing food from raw ingredients? How do you crack an egg into
> a bowl of water and add flour to make your tortillas?
Some sort of enclosed container with a beater?
--
Jette Goldie
jgold...@btinternet.com
Living in the Future!
Jessica
May 10, 2013, 6:35:32 PM5/10/13
to
On Fri, 10 May 2013 23:05:14 +0100, Jette Goldie wrote:
> On 02/05/2013 18:04, Jessica wrote:
>>
>>
>> But how is a permanent, self-sufficient facility going to cope with the
>> tasks of preparing food from raw ingredients? How do you crack an egg
>> into a bowl of water and add flour to make your tortillas?
>
> Some sort of enclosed container with a beater?
That might work, as long as there's some way of making sure that all the
> On 02/05/2013 18:04, Jessica wrote:
>>
>>
>> But how is a permanent, self-sufficient facility going to cope with the
>> tasks of preparing food from raw ingredients? How do you crack an egg
>> into a bowl of water and add flour to make your tortillas?
>
> Some sort of enclosed container with a beater?
contents pass through the beater and not stick in the corners or otherwise
not get mixed. There definitely needs to be quite a bit of engineering
time directed towards the issue.
Frank McCoy
May 11, 2013, 12:32:29 AM5/11/13
to
Jette Goldie <jgold...@btinternet.com> wrote:
>On 02/05/2013 18:04, Jessica wrote:
>>
>
>> But how is a permanent, self-sufficient facility going to cope with the
>> tasks of preparing food from raw ingredients? How do you crack an egg into
>> a bowl of water and add flour to make your tortillas?
>
>Some sort of enclosed container with a beater?
Magnetic stirrers work great with enclosed containers.
>On 02/05/2013 18:04, Jessica wrote:
>>
>
>> But how is a permanent, self-sufficient facility going to cope with the
>> tasks of preparing food from raw ingredients? How do you crack an egg into
>> a bowl of water and add flour to make your tortillas?
>
>Some sort of enclosed container with a beater?
Tesseract
May 11, 2013, 2:38:10 AM5/11/13
to
--
Tesseract
Tim Merrigan
May 11, 2013, 4:34:37 PM5/11/13
to
On Fri, 10 May 2013 22:35:32 +0000 (UTC), Jessica <m...@privacy.net>
wrote:
Well, if one uses a spherical container then there aren't any corners
for stuff to get stuck in.
wrote:
for stuff to get stuck in.
Barry Gold
May 15, 2013, 2:28:57 AM5/15/13
to
On 5/4/2013 9:05 AM, invalidd wrote:
> Barry Gold wrote:
>
>> On 5/4/2013 4:45 AM, invalidd wrote:
>>
>>> So what are the chances of devising gravity shielding/reduction
>>> technology so we can visit planets with a much larger mass than Earth?
>>
>> Our current understanding of the universe does not permit gravity
>> shielding or reduction.
>
> At Lagrange points, do objects perceive that they're subject to zero
> gravity or two lots of gravity which equal each other?
There is no such thing as zero gravity. The preferred term nowadays
> Barry Gold wrote:
>
>> On 5/4/2013 4:45 AM, invalidd wrote:
>>
>>> So what are the chances of devising gravity shielding/reduction
>>> technology so we can visit planets with a much larger mass than Earth?
>>
>> Our current understanding of the universe does not permit gravity
>> shielding or reduction.
>
> At Lagrange points, do objects perceive that they're subject to zero
> gravity or two lots of gravity which equal each other?
appears in the subject header of this thread: microgravity.
An object in "free fall" has no gravitic stress at its center of mass.
But every object (even a neutrino) has a non-zero size. So tidal effects
will cause those parts not at the exact center of mass to experience
some net gravitic effect.
Imagine a spherical shell floating in space in an inertial frame of
reference (that is, in "free fall"). By a fairly elementary
calculation, you can show that the spherical shell exerts no gravitation
anywhere inside.
Now let's put some chair and tables and beds inside. Those object have
mass, so they attract each other. Wait long enough, and they'll all end
up in a clump somewhere in the interior. Not at the center of mass (see
below).
But the shell does _not_ shield what's inside it from the gravitation of
the rest of the universe. Imagine that the shell is in a circular orbit
around the earth.
If you put something at the shell's center of mass (that is, with the
something's center of mass _exactly_ coinciding with the shell's CoM),
it will stay there, as long as no air currents, etc. disturb it.
If the object is slightly farther from the Earth's center than the
shell's CoM, it will experience a net tidal drift outward and will end
up against the far side of the shell. If the object is nearer Earth
than the shell's CoM, it will end up at the near side of the shell.
If the object is slight "ahead" of the shell's CoM, it will end up at
the farthest forward point on the shell's interior. If slightly behind,
it will end up at the farthest rearward point.
For all other positions, you get a combination of those effects. But
basically, anything that is unanchored will drift to the shell of the
spacecraft.
Oh, btw, since the Earth-Moon system is a binary, you would also have to
calculate the effects of the Moon's gravitation on the interior of the
shell.
That's for a perfect sphere. Most spacecraft have some other shape, so
the craft itself has some interior gravity, which is _probably_ greater
than the tidal effects of the Earth. So objects in the interior will
drift toward various "masscons" on/in the craft itself.
I think there's some good analysis of all this in _Indistinguishable
from Magic_ by Robert Forward.
Barry Gold
May 15, 2013, 2:34:08 AM5/15/13
to
On 5/6/2013 10:56 AM, Prof. Godel Fishbreath wrote:
> I have been paying attention to some of the physics stuff on the web.
> Yah, maybe not the best source but still not a trash source.
>
> Those spin grav devices are impractical. To get 1 g, you have to spin
> like crazy, resulting in a really heavy structure, and very strange
> and strong Coriolis effects on people's heads. If you are willing to
> settle for less grav, it could work. Having a planet or moon below you
> would be better.
Depends on the size of the ship/station. If you have a ship that's 100M
> I have been paying attention to some of the physics stuff on the web.
> Yah, maybe not the best source but still not a trash source.
>
> Those spin grav devices are impractical. To get 1 g, you have to spin
> like crazy, resulting in a really heavy structure, and very strange
> and strong Coriolis effects on people's heads. If you are willing to
> settle for less grav, it could work. Having a planet or moon below you
> would be better.
across, you have to spin really fast and get really extreme Coriolis
effects. But in a station with a diameter of 10 miles, it wouldn't be
so bad.
Back when I was taking Ph 1, I could have done that calculation in my
head. Nowadays, the only thing I remember is that you have to calculate
the _angular_ velocity, which is measured in radians/sec. (2*pi radians
= a full circle = 360°.)
Barry Gold
May 15, 2013, 2:37:36 AM5/15/13
to
On 5/8/2013 4:52 AM, Chris Zakes wrote:
> The problem with a "small" centrifuge is how fast it would need to
> spin to simulate a decent amount of gravity. Faster than a tumble
> dryer? Probably. As fast as a front-load washer? They spin fast enough
> to counter earth-normal gravity, so maybe not quite that fast.
>
> But in either case, I don't think it'd be feasible to reach into a
> moving centrifuge and try stirring whatever it is that you're cooking,
> so they'd be of limited usefulness.
Imagine a Mixmaster-like device installed in your centrifuge. You stand
> The problem with a "small" centrifuge is how fast it would need to
> spin to simulate a decent amount of gravity. Faster than a tumble
> dryer? Probably. As fast as a front-load washer? They spin fast enough
> to counter earth-normal gravity, so maybe not quite that fast.
>
> But in either case, I don't think it'd be feasible to reach into a
> moving centrifuge and try stirring whatever it is that you're cooking,
> so they'd be of limited usefulness.
on the outside and turn a knob to control how fast the beaters go around
(and hence how fast the food gets stirred).
And remember, you don't need anywhere near 1G to make the food stay in a
bowl or frying pan. I suspect 0.1g would be enough.
Chris Zakes
May 15, 2013, 7:41:09 AM5/15/13
to
mounted mixmaster doesn't require "reaching inside a moving
centrifuge" to stir the food.
And if you've done much cooking and working with a mixer, you'll know
that an automatic mixer still needs some help from a live human
occasionally, if for no other reason than to scrape the food off the
sides of the mixing bowl and back into the path of the beaters.
-Chris Zakes
Texas
--
A properly balanced sword is the most versatile weapon for close quarters ever
devised... A sword never jams, never has to be reloaded, it is always ready.
-Oscar Gordon in "Glory Road" by Robert Heinlein
Barry Gold
May 16, 2013, 5:26:40 PM5/16/13
to
On 5/15/2013 4:41 AM, Chris Zakes wrote:
> And if you've done much cooking and working with a mixer, you'll know
> that an automatic mixer still needs some help from a live human
> occasionally, if for no other reason than to scrape the food off the
> sides of the mixing bowl and back into the path of the beaters.
For a standard stand mixer, I agree. Ever seen a KitchenAid?
> And if you've done much cooking and working with a mixer, you'll know
> that an automatic mixer still needs some help from a live human
> occasionally, if for no other reason than to scrape the food off the
> sides of the mixing bowl and back into the path of the beaters.
Chris Zakes
May 16, 2013, 8:30:37 PM5/16/13
to
On Thu, 16 May 2013 14:26:40 -0700, an orbital mind-control laser
We own one. The beater doesn't *quite* hit the edges of the bowl, so
yes, it still needs scraping.
yes, it still needs scraping.
Walter Bushell
May 18, 2013, 11:01:13 PM5/18/13
to
In article <kmva20$3qu$1...@dont-email.me>,
Ten miles is also undoable for a vehicle as the mass would be great.
The more I look at this the less I like it.
The more I look at this the less I like it.
Frank McCoy
May 19, 2013, 1:11:28 AM5/19/13
to
as suggested for some Lagrange-Point habitats.
OR, you could just use a 10-mile cable.
The cable only has to be strong enough to support the "vehicle" at 1G.
Preferably though, you'd have considerable safety-margin.
Tesseract
May 19, 2013, 2:26:40 AM5/19/13
to
http://www.calctool.org/CALC/phys/newtonian/centrifugal
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20080308150829AAWRuQc
--
Tesseract
Frank McCoy
May 19, 2013, 5:06:49 AM5/19/13
to
>Would this help?
>http://www.calctool.org/CALC/phys/newtonian/centrifugal
>http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20080308150829AAWRuQc
That's just a calculator. We need examples.
>http://www.calctool.org/CALC/phys/newtonian/centrifugal
>http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20080308150829AAWRuQc
More like this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/O%27Neill_cylinder
Barry Gold
May 19, 2013, 11:37:55 AM5/19/13
to
On 5/18/2013 11:26 PM, Tesseract wrote:
> Would this help?
> http://www.calctool.org/CALC/phys/newtonian/centrifugal
> http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20080308150829AAWRuQc
A great deal. I spent a while fiddling with the numbers and found the
> Would this help?
> http://www.calctool.org/CALC/phys/newtonian/centrifugal
> http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20080308150829AAWRuQc
following:
A habitat with a radius of 10 miles making one revolution every 6
minutes will have 0.5g of centripetal acceleration at the shell. If a
six-foot man stands up, he will experience a change of approximately
0.000031g (that's 3/100,000g or 6 parts in 100,000).
Now... let's assume we only need 1/6g -- approximately that of the lunar
surface. Our habitat can have a radius of 1KM and spin at 1/2RPM.
That's pretty fast. But our 6' man will experience a change of about
0.0002g when he stands up, roughly 1 part in 1,000.
That doesn't sound like much, but let me add one item from personal
experience. We spent 4 months in Tokyo while I worked on a project
there. We stayed at the New Otani hotel, which had a rotating dim sum
restaurant on the 17th floor of the older tower. The views of Tokyo were
pretty good, and it made one rotation every hour. When walking from our
table on the outer edge to the entry (near the center), I noticed a
slight disorientation. No particular problem walking from the table to
the buffet (more or less parallel to the direction of rotation). So you
might need some time to adapt to the Coriolis effect even in the 10mile
habitat, and the 1KM habitat would be pretty damn uncomfortable for
newcomers.
In either case, things like throwing a ball or even catching something
you accidentally dropped would require learning a whole new set of
reflexes! Playing baseball in the 1KM habitat would be downright weird!
Tesseract
May 19, 2013, 1:32:55 PM5/19/13
to
would have learned that he had quickly and unconsciously adapted to the
weightless environment and was abruptly reminded of those adaptations
upon his return. This included learning to speak with a weightless
tongue but now being quite conscious of its weight. So people will learn
to adapt, including playing catch. Baseball will take a while, needing a
space big enough and not used for anything more pressing.
--
Tesseract
Walter Bushell
Jun 3, 2013, 9:22:16 AM6/3/13
to
In article <knb250$528$1...@dont-email.me>,
Tesseract <hypertesseractBECA...@verywarm.com>
wrote:
> If you caught any of Chris Hadfield's comments since his return, you
> would have learned that he had quickly and unconsciously adapted to the
> weightless environment and was abruptly reminded of those adaptations
> upon his return. This included learning to speak with a weightless
> tongue but now being quite conscious of its weight. So people will learn
> to adapt, including playing catch. Baseball will take a while, needing a
> space big enough and not used for anything more pressing.
Zero gravity is more or less constant, gravity that changes is another
matter. Things appear not to fall in a straight line. And in the
previous post we are talking about huge structures.
Tesseract <hypertesseractBECA...@verywarm.com>
wrote:
> If you caught any of Chris Hadfield's comments since his return, you
> would have learned that he had quickly and unconsciously adapted to the
> weightless environment and was abruptly reminded of those adaptations
> upon his return. This included learning to speak with a weightless
> tongue but now being quite conscious of its weight. So people will learn
> to adapt, including playing catch. Baseball will take a while, needing a
> space big enough and not used for anything more pressing.
matter. Things appear not to fall in a straight line. And in the
previous post we are talking about huge structures.
0 new messages