You are not logged in.
Pages: 1
Hi mcshlong,
It doesn't actually spin. The vessel would maintain it's orientation to the flight path just like any normal vessel would. However, the helix vessel would spiral around the flight path like watching a sidewinder missile does. It would maintain its orientaion but would spiral around a central axis. Instead of using a tether tied to a counter wieght, it would use a large number of thrusters arrayed around the outside of the cyclinderical body, with each logitutal array firing in order (or several of them) so as to cause the vessel to loop or spiral around this axis.
Inside, there would be a gimbals mounted inner hull, which would smoothly keep its orientation with the continously changing firing thrusters. Thus maintaining a constant g force in the habitation inner hull.
By having a very large spiral radius, you minimize the undesirable coriolis effects.
Think a tethored vessel traveling to mars, but just replace the tether and anchor with inward pushing thrusters. The great advantage here, is that you are essentially using a somewhat modified conventional vessel instead of some large three piece cumbersome accident waiting to happen vessel.
Maybe this weekend I'll post some sketches of the helix vessel idea on my website.
One concern I have is this: Does it make more since to have a double hulled vessel, with the outer hull logitutually stationary, and the inner hull mounted on gimbals, or, use a single hull design with the hull itself spinning? Using just one set of logitutal arrayed thrusters.
I think the double hull makes since for a variety of reasons:
1. It provides a stationary outer hull for mounted equipment like sensors, navigational and communications equipment.
2. It makes it easier for docking ships to dock.
3. The double hull, provides a great opportunity to increas protection from radiation, debri, and last but not least.
4. It provides a vibrational dampending barrier.
Mark
Thanks for the warm welcome Shaun.
?There's nothing intrinsically wrong with that of course, except for the continuous high rate of fuel usage in the thrusters. Considering that you're using a standard Hohmann transfer orbit, it's still a 6 month trip. That's a long time to be firing those thrusters! If you were to just aim your craft at Mars and accelerate at 1g, flipping around at the half way mark and decelerating at 1g, the trip would take about 42 hours. (Assuming you waited until Mars was closest to Earth.)
I think the latter method is considerably more fuel efficient! Unless I'm missing something important here.?
I?m not a mathematician so correct me if I?m wrong, but I think there is a huge difference in fuel between the two examples, and it favors the helix trajectory.
Lets use a car as an example. One car try?s to maintain a constant 1g effect on it?s passengers by constantly accelerating in a straight line. It?s obvious that before long it would be approaching the speed of light and consume a massive amount of fuel. On the other hand, the other car swerves in an ?S? shape pattern along the meridian, all the while maintaining a constant speed. Its passenger is thrown two and fro, but instead, imagine that the seat is mounted on gimbals. The passenger now experiences a smooth and constant g force!
A mathematician might want to calculate the necessary thrust needed to maintain such helix trajectory. Solar and nuclear fuel might be able to maintain this thrust over long periods of time!
Mark
Helix Craft
This craft would travel between Earth and Mars on a helix path, spiraling along a conventional navigational path between the planets. The craft would use conventional propulsion for it's acceleration to Mars.
Small thrusters evenly spaced around a cylindrical outer hall would provide a continuous variable angular thrust, at a right angle to the direction of travel. This would put the craft on a spiral path.
A cylindrical, inner gyroscopic mounted habitation hull would provide a stable 1g artificial gravity environment.
The rotational breath of the helix could be very large, possible as large as 60 miles, depending on the fuel requirements needed to maintain the constant use of the thrusters.
A very large rotational length would allow for a small RPM, thus reducing the Coriolis Effect. It would also establish a uniform gravity from head to foot.
The 1g artificial gravity would be created by the continuous change in angular momentum of the outer hull. The inner hull, mounted on gimbals (diamagnetic bearings are interesting), would insure that it would always be in alignment with the centripedal accelerations.
The advantage is that you are not relying on a tethered system that might break down, and also you would eliminate the cumbersome nature of the rotating wheel, and tethered systems.
As you approached Mars, you could use the thrusters to reduce and then eliminate the helix path, and then enjoy the benefits of a conventional craft design.
Mark
Pages: 1