Andrew Posted March 23, 2015 Posted March 23, 2015 I remember in 2001 (the film rather than the year) that the space station rotates to give the occupants gravity.So, when bored I wondered what speed it spin to give 1 earth gravity. Bear with me:Usinga = w 2 rw in rad/secI reckon a 100 metre radius station would have to rotate at 3.15 rpm giving a linear velocity of 33m/s.A 200m radius would be 2.14rpm, 45 m/s. (Big rounding errors as can't find a calculator).Using v=wr to sub into the other equation I get:ar = v 2So I think the bigger the station gets the faster you have to be travelling to get 1 gravity.Some one put me out of my misery and check my calculations as I know there are brainy engineering and physics type people here.Thanks for your indulgence.
JohnnyB Posted March 23, 2015 Posted March 23, 2015 Ironically, you posted this about the same time I was playing the LP soundtrack from 2001: A Space Odyssey, particularly to hear the Danube Waltz, the music that accompanies the approach to the rotating space station.As for your question, I have no direct answers, but there are some websites that may help:This,this,and this.
cynic Posted March 23, 2015 Posted March 23, 2015 I think what JohnnyB is trying to say is that a 15cm radius station rotates at 33 1/3 rpm.
mathman Posted March 23, 2015 Posted March 23, 2015 I am pretty sure there is a problem with v=wr to replace w^2r as v^2. W^2r=. wwr= wv. If v = wr
Andrew Posted March 23, 2015 Author Posted March 23, 2015 I am pretty sure there is a problem with v=wr to replace w^2r as v^2.W^2r=. wwr= wv. If v = wrw = v/r then w 2 = v 2 / r 2a = w 2 r or a/r = w 2 = v2 / r2 multiply both sides by r 2and you get a x r = v 2 And it fits roughly with the velocity worked out using the circumferance. Or I may well be wrong. I am running out of old envelopes.
JohnnyB Posted March 23, 2015 Posted March 23, 2015 I think what JohnnyB is trying to say is that a 15cm radius station rotates at 33 1/3 rpm. Back in college we used a cheap BSR turntable to test which of four kittens was the most tenacious against 33-1/3 RPM centripetal force. Last kitten thrown off won. His prize? Another ride with all the losing kittens. Speaking of turntables, the late John Michell, founder of Michell Engineering, a British high end turntable company, built the model used for the spaceship Discovery in 2001: A Space Odyssey. According to the company history, the Discovery inspired his turntable designs. A few years ago there was a thread that showed Jol at home in front of his stereo rig. His turntable was a JA Michell Gyrodec. Another high end turntable/tonearm company is SME Limited, which originally stood for Scale Model Equipment Company Ltd. I think they also made some iconic models in the old days but I've forgotten--or never knew--what they are, but here's their top line turntable.
HAMERMAN Posted March 24, 2015 Posted March 24, 2015 Since this thread has already diverged mightily I will add that it got me thinking about the FInial Laser turntable and wondering of it ever became anything more than vaporware.To my surprise it looks like it did eventually happen:http://hometheaterreview.com/the-finial-laser-turntable-reviewed/
FGJ Posted March 29, 2015 Posted March 29, 2015 I'm envious at all of you math experts. I've always leaned more toward literature and logic/analytic philosophy, but math is just too complex for me. My poor memory can never seem to retain or recall all of the formulas necessary to perform the necessary calculations or able to memorize the symbolic shorthand. Perhaps it's true after all that artists are not wired for math. On another note, what is one "earth gravity"? To what kind of unit does the reference apply?
Andrew Posted March 29, 2015 Author Posted March 29, 2015 I'm envious at all of you math experts. I've always leaned more toward literature and logic/analytic philosophy, but math is just too complex for me. My poor memory can never seem to retain or recall all of the formulas necessary to perform the necessary calculations or able to memorize the symbolic shorthand. Perhaps it's true after all that artists are not wired for math.On another note, what is one "earth gravity"? To what kind of unit does the reference apply?9.8 metres per second per second, the acceleration of a body dropped in a vacuum. About 5 metres in first second, 20 after 2 seconds according to the formula,d=vt + 1/2a t 2 .There is no such thing as a mathematical mind or an artistic one, it's all just training. You could do it if you really wanted or needed to, ordinary language is much more complex that maths.. (Note the s, please!)
Disturber Posted March 29, 2015 Posted March 29, 2015 I love the HFC, on which other board could I find a thread like this.
FGJ Posted April 1, 2015 Posted April 1, 2015 Thanks, Andrew, that's encouraging, and I'm certain you're probably entirely correct. Were I not already far along in life with no time on my hands, I'd like to actually try to learn something beyond basic math. As is often the case, I rarely have any need for anything beyond basic math, and perhaps that's the source of my apathy and laziness (and I suspect most others unfortunately share my excuse as well). My only regret is that my apparent lack of math skills make it difficult for me to wade through more complex symbolic logic. Propositional logic and analytic philosophy rooted in language and semantics seems to come more easily to me, but as soon as a string of symbolic logic gets too lengthy, my mind has difficulty handling it.
JohnnyB Posted April 3, 2015 Posted April 3, 2015 Thanks, Andrew, that's encouraging, and I'm certain you're probably entirely correct. Were I not already far along in life with no time on my hands, I'd like to actually try to learn something beyond basic math. As is often the case, I rarely have any need for anything beyond basic math, and perhaps that's the source of my apathy and laziness (and I suspect most others unfortunately share my excuse as well).My only regret is that my apparent lack of math skills make it difficult for me to wade through more complex symbolic logic. Propositional logic and analytic philosophy rooted in language and semantics seems to come more easily to me, but as soon as a string of symbolic logic gets too lengthy, my mind has difficulty handling it.I feel the same way. While I was in high school, I struggled with trigonometry and biology; the next stage would have been calculus and physics. My brain wasn't ready for them back then, but I wish I could have eased into it because I would probably have loved it, possibly designing audio equipment or designing sound systems where calculations for acoustics of odd-shaped spaces walled by extreme ranges of reflective and absorptive materials would have been part of the job.
JohnnyB Posted April 3, 2015 Posted April 3, 2015 Johnny B can find hi fi everywhere! And until the rest of the world comes to understand this basic truth of the human condition, my work will never be done.
Willie G. Moseley Posted April 3, 2015 Posted April 3, 2015 2001: A Space Odyssey was no Space Thing...
JohnnyB Posted April 3, 2015 Posted April 3, 2015 2001: A Space Odyssey was no Space Thing... ... and Alien was "No Space Thing Left Behind."
Question
Andrew
I remember in 2001 (the film rather than the year) that the space station rotates to give the occupants gravity.
So, when bored I wondered what speed it spin to give 1 earth gravity. Bear with me:
Using
a = w 2 r
w in rad/sec
I reckon a 100 metre radius station would have to rotate at 3.15 rpm giving a linear velocity of 33m/s.
A 200m radius would be 2.14rpm, 45 m/s. (Big rounding errors as can't find a calculator).
Using v=wr to sub into the other equation I get:
ar = v 2
So I think the bigger the station gets the faster you have to be travelling to get 1 gravity.
Some one put me out of my misery and check my calculations as I know there are brainy engineering and physics type people here.
Thanks for your indulgence.
15 answers to this question
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.