/sci/ - Science & Math

>>11706070
>is that it forces people to build rotating ships and stations, which imply much, much larger structures in space

implies no such thing, just connect two ships with a tether

>>11402443
use a tether like this, not much additional mass needed, downside is issues with dynamical stability and course corrections

>>11156322
>You can absolutely spin hard enough for 1g, you just need a fairly large cylinder.

You dont even need a cylinder, just two ships connected by a tether.

>>10924299
Like this?

And here is someone analyzing Starship trajectories to gas giants. It is a beast after refueling.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hartle%E2%80%93Hawking_state

>>10919230
>we don't have the Tech yet to reach mars in less than 3 months before astronauts bodies are fucked

It takes 3-5 months to go to Mars one way, and ISS research shows that if you use high load exercise, bone density loss is negligible over such timeframes. This will not stop a Mars mission.

Then there is also the possibility of using rotational gravity by connecting two Starships with a tether. May come in handy when non-professional astronauts begin to migrate to Mars.

>>10887467

>>10876774
>ould they not connect a passenger ship up to a cargo ship and rotate them slowly with RCS to generate a little gravity?

pic related

>>10477489
>I thought that a craft needed to be of a certain radius to avoid negative effects of spinning rapidly.

It takes around 400m diameter supposedly. Maybe trained astronauts may gt away with less.

https://www.artificial-gravity.com/sw/SpinCalc/

>>9542053

>>9154288

flight proven rocket launch is around $40 million, down from $62 million for a new one. This number will go further down in the future.