Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!mnetor!seismo!columbia!rutgers!clyde!cuae2!ihnp4!inuxc!pur-ee!uiucdcs!uiucdcsp!jenks
From: jenks@uiucdcsp.cs.uiuc.edu
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Re: The vestibular system in rotati
Message-ID: <74700002@uiucdcsp>
Date: Thu, 13-Nov-86 20:55:00 EST
Article-I.D.: uiucdcsp.74700002
Posted: Thu Nov 13 20:55:00 1986
Date-Received: Sun, 16-Nov-86 00:27:58 EST
References: <7270@utzoo.UUCP>
Lines: 31
Nf-ID: #R:utzoo.UUCP:7270:uiucdcsp:74700002:000:1464
Nf-From: uiucdcsp.cs.uiuc.edu!jenks    Nov 13 19:55:00 1986


/* Written 11:12 am  Oct 31, 1986 by henry@utzoo.UUCP in
uiucdcsp:sci.space */
/* ---------- "Re: The vestibular system in rotati" ---------- */
>> There has been some discussion about rotating space colonies lately,
>> mostly concerned with the reliability of bearings.  My recollection
>> was that the idea of rotating structures to produce pseudogravity was
>> out because of problems with Coriolis forces and the human vestibular
>> system.  I have not seen this point made in print...
>
>If you check out Gerry O'Neill's original book "The High Frontier"
>(1978?), you will see it in print.  The problem has been known since
>quite early in the history of the space-colony concept.  This is why
>O'Neill's definitive large-colony designs spin at 1 RPM or less.  This
>does make for troublingly large structures; he suggested that a small
>first colony, with crew selected for resistance to such problems, might
>be able to spin at 2-3 RPM.  --
>				Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
>				{allegra,ihnp4,decvax,pyramid}!utzoo!henry
/* End of text from uiucdcsp:sci.space */

How about a small colony at the end of a l-o-n-g tether?  Put your labs at the
other end, and a micro gravity environment in the middle.  This would provide
the necessary radius for "artificial gravity" without the huge structure.


        -- Ken Jenks
		jenks@p.cs.uiuc.edu
		{ihnp4!pur-ee}uiucdcs!uiucdcsp
			VAXing Poetic At
		              	Univ. of Illinois, Urbana/Champaign