Timeline for Could artificial gravity help send large spacecrafts into space?
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
8 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sep 23, 2021 at 9:09 | comment | added | Pelinore | "Most interesting about not having to pay is the fact you'll have de facto discovered (or created) a perpetual motion machine" ^ Now I'm wondering about what this means for the law of conservation of energy & what the consequences of adding all that magical free energy to the earth & universe will be :) it could ultimately make global warming look like a rather silly little minor concern :) | |
| Sep 23, 2021 at 8:54 | comment | added | Pelinore | "you'll have to pay for every single joule of gravitational potential energy you're imbuing the material you're lifting" Most interesting about not having to pay is the fact you'll have de facto discovered (or created) a perpetual motion machine even if you don't understand the principles of the machine or tech you use to do it :) antigravity something to a good height drop it & harvest the potential energy that's now more than it cost you to create, water from below up into a hydro-damn perhaps. | |
| Sep 20, 2021 at 12:49 | comment | added | SeanR | Turning gravity off reminds me of this Asimov gem en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Billiard_Ball | |
| Sep 20, 2021 at 11:42 | comment | added | SpoonMeiser | I think the problem about neutralising the gravity beneath an orbiting satellite would be better framed as: If you need a powerful rocket to keep the satellite in orbit, is that going to take more energy than lifting whatever you're lifting without altering gravity? It might be that keeping the satellite in place becomes difficult and expensive, but the whole thing still works out cheaper overall (ignoring your point about conservation of energy, of course) | |
| Sep 20, 2021 at 10:10 | comment | added | Starfish Prime | @GrumpyYoungMan if you are in, eg. low earth orbit and the local gravitational field suddenly drops by half a G, you're now travelling at over escape velocity. If the satellite is now a gravity source (rather than reducing or nullifying it) it will fall towards the earth because it will no longer be travelling at an orbital velocity sufficient to keep it up given the strength of the local gravitational field. This is why you need magic, in order to handwave away all these issues. | |
| Sep 20, 2021 at 3:14 | comment | added | GrumpyYoungMan | Re: "once the gravity beneath your satellite is neutralised, what keeps your satellite in its orbit?", there's not actually a problem with that. Either the effect is one way (the satellite emits a 0.5 g field but is attracted by other gravity fields as if it only had the mass of the satellite, in which case it orbits as a normal satellite would) or it's bi-directional (the satellite both emits and is gravitated upon as if it had enough mass to possess a 0.5 g gravitational field and orbits as a moon would). | |
| Sep 20, 2021 at 1:06 | comment | added | Ekadh Singh - Reinstate Monica | This makes sense to me, but IMO it could be worded a bit nicer. | |
| Sep 19, 2021 at 19:12 | history | answered | Starfish Prime | CC BY-SA 4.0 |