I don't see how NASA can ever get any long range planning done with one president saying do it this way, and then another president saying, "oh wait", "no, do it this way".

As far as the latest proclamation, Trump needs to put the money where his mouth is.

And even worse, congress controlling the purse strings.

---

Bob DeWoody

My motto: Never do today what you can put off until tomorrow as it may not be required. This no longer applies in light of current events.

In terms of the potential size of a spinning space station maintaining 1g, here's a useful resource

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

Just a brief look gives the result of at least 1.1 miles diameter to provide a 1g environment, keeping the rotation to once a minute, so if anyone thinks windows are a good idea on anything smaller, then they are mistaken, people would start to feel physically sick looking outside at current ISS sizing.

In terms of the potential size of a spinning space station maintaining 1g, here's a useful resource

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

Just a brief look gives the result of at least 1.1 miles diameter to provide a 1g environment, keeping the rotation to once a minute, so if anyone thinks windows are a good idea on anything smaller, then they are mistaken, people would start to feel physically sick looking outside at current ISS sizing.

That is very useful information. Probably somewhat ambitious for construction anytime soon. As I recall, the space station in 2001 a Space Odyssey was only partially complete with the framework finished, and the hub but the rest of the habitat only about 1/4th finished.

---

Bob DeWoody

My motto: Never do today what you can put off until tomorrow as it may not be required. This no longer applies in light of current events.

Space Station V in '2001: A Space Odessy' has both incorrect dimensions and angular velocity to sustain a 0.16 g gravity as depicted in the story.

The film states that the station is approximately 300 m in Diameter, and rotates every 61 seconds (angular velocity of 1.0166667) to maintain Moon Gravity (centrepetal acceleration of 0.16 g)

Yet feeding the angular velocity and centrepetal acceleration into Spincalc gives a radius of approximately 138.43 m (diameter of 276.86 m), which is an approximate of 275 m, not 300 m

I do hate it when the basic maths fails to pan out in a story.

I would also question the validity of attempting to provide an environment of 0.16 g, where people are unable to walk properly as being in anyway useful in acclimatising anyone to low gravity.

That the US will make a large human colony in space is very far fetched
No Perhaps if Russia and China will join that.

China is learning the hard way. Tiangong-1 is out of control, Tiangong-2 is in orbit and Tiangong-3 has been postponed or abandoned. Tiangong means Heavenly Palace. Russia has launched a commercial rocket with the Meteor-M satellite from its new Vostochny base in Russia, but the computer had been loaded with the Baikonur data, so it crashed last November.
Tullio

---

Spinning to 1 G is a laudable goal, but may not be necessary, at least from a physiological perspective. Some fraction of a G may be all that's needed to minimize bone loss and muscle mass deterioration. Unfortunately, 40 years of wallowing in LEO hasn't advanced the artificial gravity issue much. Sure we did studies with exercise programs in 0 G designed to address bone and muscle mass loss (and other issues). But these are not practical solutions for deep space missions with 0 G transfer orbits lasting months or years. Doubling or, in some cases, tripling, your caloric intake for aggressive exercise programs translates into increasing the mass of food consumables. It also would require an increase in consumables like CO2 scrubbers (if using LiOH or some other type of non-catalytic CO2 scrubber). Launching mass costs money.
In his book Journey to the Stars, Robert Jastrow hypothesized a twin module system for a Mars mission, tethered by cables, spinning at a rate to create 0.67 G, This would be midway between 1 standard G and Mars gravity.
Spinning ships/stations/colonies of any kind generates second and third order issues like stable antenna mounts and docking ports, and constant thruster "fiddling" (with associated consumable use) will be necessary to offset the effects of movement inside the ship/station.
I believe the first artificial gravity systems will be designed at some fraction of a G; will be compartmentalized as a small part of any craft; be at right angles to the direction of thrust/travel (in the case of ships), and may not run 24/7. Maybe G in the sleep cycles would prove best.
I still think a variant of the carnival ride Gravitron will find its way into space.

---