Oh Heinlen, how could you?
-
I must come to Heinlein's defence here. The quote comes from Chapter 8 of The Cat Who Walks Through Walls. We have a cylindrical space station, spinning about the cylinder's axis. This gives you a space station made of cylindrical shells, each with its own level of gravity due to centripetal force. The cylinder is quite long (at least a few hundred meters, judging by the presence of scooters inside), and was built with the axis of the cylinder pointing at the Moon. For a non-rotating cylinder, this position will be maintained because the gravitational pull on the near end of the cylinder is higher than that on the far end. This is your tidal lock. As I see it, the problem here is that the cylinder is rotating. Forcing the axis to always point at the moon requires torque to be applied, and I am unsure whether the Moon's gravitational force provides enough. I have not read the book recently, but IIRC it doesn't give us enough information to do the calculation. [Height over the Moon's surface - 300km (Chapter 9) Length of the cylinder - ??? Radius of the cylinder - ??? <==> Rate of rotation - ???] If Heinlein sinned here, it was not a great sin. Gentlemen (and Ladies) of the Jury, give me your verdict. :)
If you have an important point to make, don't try to be subtle or clever. Use a pile driver. Hit the point once. Then come back and hit it again. Then hit it a third time - a tremendous whack. --Winston Churchill
-
Your Honour; he mentions not if the cylinders were counter-rotating either ... not sure if it makes a difference, anyway, but wouldn't counter-rotating areas cancel out the gyroscope effect and allow it to maintain its attitude?
PooperPig - Coming Soon
You have to have all cylindrical shells rotating in the same direction, otherwise transferring from one shell to the next would require very precise timing (think about it...). The same reasoning applies to an extension of the cylinder.
If you have an important point to make, don't try to be subtle or clever. Use a pile driver. Hit the point once. Then come back and hit it again. Then hit it a third time - a tremendous whack. --Winston Churchill
-
You have to have all cylindrical shells rotating in the same direction, otherwise transferring from one shell to the next would require very precise timing (think about it...). The same reasoning applies to an extension of the cylinder.
If you have an important point to make, don't try to be subtle or clever. Use a pile driver. Hit the point once. Then come back and hit it again. Then hit it a third time - a tremendous whack. --Winston Churchill
-
If the cylindrical shells were counter-rotating, you would still have a problem of the lift going through the shells. I don't see how you would arrange this without the shells being in segments, broken where the lift goes through the shell. I'm not a mechanical engineer, so perhaps there is a way to get this to work, but I can't see it.
If you have an important point to make, don't try to be subtle or clever. Use a pile driver. Hit the point once. Then come back and hit it again. Then hit it a third time - a tremendous whack. --Winston Churchill
-
If the cylindrical shells were counter-rotating, you would still have a problem of the lift going through the shells. I don't see how you would arrange this without the shells being in segments, broken where the lift goes through the shell. I'm not a mechanical engineer, so perhaps there is a way to get this to work, but I can't see it.
If you have an important point to make, don't try to be subtle or clever. Use a pile driver. Hit the point once. Then come back and hit it again. Then hit it a third time - a tremendous whack. --Winston Churchill
you don't need a lift - as far as you're concerned it's walking through a doorway from one to the other - might be a bit jerky on the old legs I suppose, but it's not vertical, it's horizontal (from a 'gravitational perspective' point of view)
PooperPig - Coming Soon
-
you don't need a lift - as far as you're concerned it's walking through a doorway from one to the other - might be a bit jerky on the old legs I suppose, but it's not vertical, it's horizontal (from a 'gravitational perspective' point of view)
PooperPig - Coming Soon
I still can't visualise it; have you any virtual napkins to use for drawings? :)
If you have an important point to make, don't try to be subtle or clever. Use a pile driver. Hit the point once. Then come back and hit it again. Then hit it a third time - a tremendous whack. --Winston Churchill
-
KP Lee wrote:
Again, this station is like a top. That top continues to point to the center of the Earth against Earth's massive gravity trying to upend it.
But that doesn't sound right to me. the reason a top upends is because its point cannot move, but the rest of it can. If you stand a pencil on a table it will fall over. If you drop a pencil from a height it will land point down. The Earth isn't trying to upend it! The gyroscope effect will keep a spinning body oriented in the same direction, relative to the universe, as it moves - so you are right in that, if the axis is pointing toward the moon, and the ship is in orbit, then it would tend to rotate through a vertical plane through 360 degrees each orbit. H suggests the tidal forces act on the ship - so is he assuming the tidal force is great enough to overcome the gyroscopic force?
PooperPig - Coming Soon
_Maxxx_ wrote:
the reason a top upends is because its point cannot move, but the rest of it can.
Sort of right, but not quite. The top upends because the point is not a stable platform. You try to balance a top on it's point and let go, within seconds it will have tipped over. (Unless you stick it in sand, but that just widens the support base.) It doesn't immediately topple when you release the spinning top because the gyroscopic force overcomes the natural desire to topple and the point is a quite stable platform. In fact if the top lands unbalanced it will spin in smaller and smaller circles until the point comes to a complete stop (Relative to the floor location) and spins in place. The point hitting the floor is an anchor point that tries to keep the top in one place. The gyroscopic action is the stabilizing force. It finally becomes an unstable platform as the top slows it's spin.
_Maxxx_ wrote:
so is he assuming the tidal force is great enough to overcome the gyroscopic force?
I can't know what he is assuming. A spaceship with multiple rings ranging from 0.01 G's through 1 g levels would be massive, probably in the millions of KGms of material. Yes, the closer the orbit the bigger the tidal force, but the moon hasn't come close to stopping the Earth. I'm guessing putting a 100 Gm Top spinning in a 100 M orbit around the moon would take more than a month to stop spinning because of tidal forces. (It would fairly quickly start precessing.)
-
Gjeltema wrote:
he peaked with Time Enough for Love
Have to agree with you there, although Moon is a Harsh Mistress is my favourite among many. I have read a number of authors who are touted as the new Heinlein, Spider Robinson comes to mind, but they are not a patch on the RAH. I think having someone pick at his scientific accuracy after he is dead would hugely amuse him.
Never underestimate the power of human stupidity RAH
Given your username, I'm not surprised that Moon is a Harsh Mistress is your favorite. :) I thoroughly enjoyed most of his books/stories before and after Time Enough for Love, I just personally found that to be his best book (it's one of my top 2 favorite books overall).
-
Given your username, I'm not surprised that Moon is a Harsh Mistress is your favorite. :) I thoroughly enjoyed most of his books/stories before and after Time Enough for Love, I just personally found that to be his best book (it's one of my top 2 favorite books overall).
Most think Mycroft comes from the detective guy, I always liked the idea of a self aware computer :laugh:
Never underestimate the power of human stupidity RAH
-
I still can't visualise it; have you any virtual napkins to use for drawings? :)
If you have an important point to make, don't try to be subtle or clever. Use a pile driver. Hit the point once. Then come back and hit it again. Then hit it a third time - a tremendous whack. --Winston Churchill
Imagine putting two hamster wheels side-by-side. Spin one clockwise, the other anti-clockwise. A well timed jump could take you from one wheel to the other. So, now add 50 wheels. The one at the far end spins fast Next to it spins one slightly slower And so on, until the middle, where it doesn't spin. The *next* one spins slowly in the opposite direction. then faster and faster until the ends. Obviously, for docking purposes, it would be best to also have continually slowing rings out toward the ends so we can dock without having to match rotation - but as lonog as we duplicate the situation at each end, but in the opposite direction, then the rotations cancel each other out. As I mentioned- I have absolutely no idea if this reduces the gyroscope effect at all!
PooperPig - Coming Soon
-
Imagine putting two hamster wheels side-by-side. Spin one clockwise, the other anti-clockwise. A well timed jump could take you from one wheel to the other. So, now add 50 wheels. The one at the far end spins fast Next to it spins one slightly slower And so on, until the middle, where it doesn't spin. The *next* one spins slowly in the opposite direction. then faster and faster until the ends. Obviously, for docking purposes, it would be best to also have continually slowing rings out toward the ends so we can dock without having to match rotation - but as lonog as we duplicate the situation at each end, but in the opposite direction, then the rotations cancel each other out. As I mentioned- I have absolutely no idea if this reduces the gyroscope effect at all!
PooperPig - Coming Soon
I see your point, but this will not solve the prime problem of providing maximal living space. A rigid set of concentric cylindrical shells, all rotating together about their common long axis (same angular velocity for all shells), does so admirably - you can have full Earth gravity at the outer shell, going down as you get closer to the main cylinder's axis. If you have a non-rigid set of shells (each shell rotating with a different angular velocity), you must have some sort of arrangement to keep the shells rotating smoothly past each other. Moving from one shell to another is much more difficult proposition, and God help the inhabitants if the "ball bearings" seize up... The rigid set of shells can solve the docking problem very nicely. Docking is always at the axis. Either your spacecraft match rotation with the space station and dock, or there is a counter-rotating docking station at the axis, which (after the spacecraft has undocked) speeds up in order to let the passengers cross into the space station. IIRC, the second choice is the one used by Heinlein, Clarke, and others.
If you have an important point to make, don't try to be subtle or clever. Use a pile driver. Hit the point once. Then come back and hit it again. Then hit it a third time - a tremendous whack. --Winston Churchill