PDA

View Full Version : 0g Architecture



ZunarJ5
2012-Oct-10, 10:54 PM
Speculation; Some humans or humanoid evolved species eventually find themselves adapted to life in 0.0 gravity conditions. How? Well, however you like. Maybe genetic engineering. Why? I'm sure they had reasons. Regardless, the end result is a smaller, less massive version of a human being (perhaps other superficial differences) who has physically, mentally, and socially adapted to 0g cities navigating through space.

Based on these descriptions, what do you think the architecture of their city ships would look like? Exterior and interior. I'm wondering about efficiency of space and the logistics of an almost completely self-sufficient arcology. I am also curious as to how outdated terrestrial influences might impact the design.

Thank you.



(It's possible this thread is better placed in Science and Technology.)

profloater
2012-Oct-10, 11:18 PM
In zero g (I just spent a while pondering Ogs) there is a problem distributing fresh air so there are fans and tubes. private spaces have just one door but two tubes while communal spaces have many doors all over the place and many tubes. Each tube has long grab rails for locomotion. Wealthier people have longer access tubes for more privacy and security. This goes to ridiculous extremes and the extended high status pods need extra structure to avoid damage during collisions. Those are the suburbs.

Noclevername
2012-Oct-10, 11:40 PM
If they utilize wings, whether manufactured appliances or genetically engineered biology, their tastes might run to large open bubbles. There might be flying contests and even 3-D obstacle courses.

eburacum45
2012-Oct-10, 11:53 PM
If they utilize wings, whether manufactured appliances or genetically engineered biology, their tastes might run to large open bubbles. There might be flying contests and even 3-D obstacle courses.
Some images of freefall environments I've made

A large open bubble in orbit
http://www.orionsarm.com/eg-article/465107020ee57

A 'smoke ring', a fantastically large freefall circumstellar habitat first imagined by Larry Niven
http://www.orionsarm.com/eg-article/48473da1cd9bc

Microgravity habitats could be almost any shape and size, although they would tend to self-gravitate
http://www.orionsarm.com/eg-article/4b599f9cd84ba

Noclevername
2012-Oct-11, 12:10 AM
Excellent pics! I'm a fan of Niven's Smoke Ring universe myself. (For the uninitiated, Niven's version was a natural phenomenon, a dense gas torus (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gas_torus) formed around a dead neutron star by the remains of a former gas giant planet. It had "integral trees" that were basically living orbital tethers 100 kilometers long.)

eburacum45
2012-Oct-11, 01:26 AM
Excellent pics! I'm a fan of Niven's Smoke Ring universe myself. (For the uninitiated, Niven's version was a natural phenomenon, a dense gas torus (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gas_torus) formed around a dead neutron star by the remains of a former gas giant planet. It had "integral trees" that were basically living orbital tethers 100 kilometers long.)

There's quite an extended sequence in one of Peter Hamilton's books (I forget which) set in a vast freefall habitat, and part of Iain M. Banks' Look To Windward occurs in a huge balloonworld, with gigantic sentient beings called behemothaurs. Giant freefall environments seem like quite a good idea - they would, however, be very conspicuous objects which would be visible at a great distance.

Noclevername
2012-Oct-11, 01:33 AM
There's quite an extended sequence in one of Peter Hamilton's books (I forget which) set in a vast freefall habitat, and part of Iain M. Banks' Look To Windward occurs in a huge balloonworld, with gigantic sentient beings called behemothaurs. Giant freefall environments seem like quite a good idea - they would, however, be very conspicuous objects which would be visible at a great distance.

Make them mobile. Attach a lightsail-- though you're bound to get complaints when you're accelerating the residents to a breakneck .001 G!

Jens
2012-Oct-11, 01:42 AM
It occurs to me that you'd want to have lots of rounded edges and padding, because you don't really want people having thrusters (think of the exhaust problems) so it would be better for people to jump to where they want to go, and then sort of hit a net or something like that. One occupation that would be much less required would be lower back pain clinics! You might even want some kind of netting throughout the structure, because imagine what would happen if you sort of kicked yourself off into a large space: you might end up floating around for a long time before getting to the other side of the space.

Noclevername
2012-Oct-11, 01:48 AM
... imagine what would happen if you sort of kicked yourself off into a large space: you might end up floating around for a long time before getting to the other side of the space.

It might become common for people to use "Asimov wings"; basically large folding fans that you strap to your feet like swim fins. It might become automatic to slip these on before leaving home just like putting shoes on is for us. "I'll be right there, I just have to tie my wing!"

Noclevername
2012-Oct-11, 01:57 AM
It occurs to me that you'd want to have lots of rounded edges and padding, because you don't really want people having thrusters (think of the exhaust problems) so it would be better for people to jump to where they want to go, and then sort of hit a net or something like that. One occupation that would be much less required would be lower back pain clinics! You might even want some kind of netting throughout the structure, because imagine what would happen if you sort of kicked yourself off into a large space: you might end up floating around for a long time before getting to the other side of the space.

Where did you get the thrusters idea from?

eburacum45
2012-Oct-11, 03:48 AM
Microgravity adapted humans could use airjets for thrust; they could use other biologically produced gases but the side-effects might be undesirable. Especially if smoking or naked flames were allowed in the habitat...

Noclevername
2012-Oct-11, 04:02 AM
Microgravity adapted humans could use airjets for thrust; they could use other biologically produced gases but the side-effects might be undesirable. Especially if smoking or naked flames were allowed in the habitat...

Smoking is unlikely, naked flames don't go well with freefall, and the biogas is probably not going to be appreciated by neighbors-- unless their sense of smell is modified too! :whistle:

Noclevername
2012-Oct-11, 04:24 AM
Going back to the architecture, how about sculpted water? I can imagine some device to swirl water around into a torus, contunally spinning. Maybe a pinwheel of large loops like bubble wands, mounted on a turning shaft, just the right speed to prevent the water from flinging off into the walls. Other more exotic shapes may be possible.

IsaacKuo
2012-Oct-11, 06:12 AM
I have actually been putting a lot of thought into this, but on the small scale--on the level of a house and its interior design. Simple little things like chairs and tables need to be completely rethought. Obviously, stairs aren't necessary, nor is organization into flat spread out floors.

It's tempting to simply model everything on the ISS, but the ISS is really cramped and "all business". Comfortable homes would be more spacious and feature mostly creature comforts--not endless work stations and hardware modules. Skylab was more spacious, but it was a first learning experience where no one really knew how usable everything would be until they tried it.

Ara Pacis
2012-Oct-11, 08:14 AM
Instead of being spacious, I'd expect tubes and quarters to be relatively cramped because you don't want to accidentally get stuck in the middle of an 8'x8'x8' room unable to grab anything to pull yourself along.

profloater
2012-Oct-11, 08:52 AM
Instead of being spacious, I'd expect tubes and quarters to be relatively cramped because you don't want to accidentally get stuck in the middle of an 8'x8'x8' room unable to grab anything to pull yourself along.

I agree with that, the humans would tend towards long prehensile feet like monkeys. The tubes would have clever moving handrails and might well be a complex one way system. For sleeping, if still part of human experience, some would go for ankle and wrist tethers but most opt for sleeping bags. The central older part is a right angles grid of travel tubes at 17 foot centres with near cubic habitations in the spaces. Useful work is encouraged but many stay in their bags with their holographic games. Open spaces or volumes are reserved for 3D sports such as bounce rugby and waffle ball. Within those some will try fly suits but they will require artificial muscles based on sugars. Growth remains an objective but reproduction is controlled by hormones and neuron remapping. Floaty vacuum cleaners called suckers roam about everywhere sucking up the endless debris, they work like the robot grass cutters on the green zone, taking themselves to parking chutes automatically. The suburbs engage in battles with distant spheres for amusement and eventually break off to form new colonies. This happens after fully distributed electrical generation by fusion back packs is developed.

IsaacKuo
2012-Oct-11, 10:18 AM
Instead of being spacious, I'd expect tubes and quarters to be relatively cramped because you don't want to accidentally get stuck in the middle of an 8'x8'x8' room unable to grab anything to pull yourself along.

Do you really mean 8 foot by 8 foot by 8 foot? Because that is TINY. It would be extremely difficult for even a short person to get stuck in the middle of that.

I'm guessing you actually mean yards or meters, but that's implausibly large for a household room.

Anyway, a central pole would provide a convenient thing to grab for anyone within a 2m radius. That's good for one way traffic, but two or more parallel poles separated by 2m would be better since they would allow two way traffic as well as allowing for people to stop for various reasons without blocking things. This implies a corridor about 6m in diameter--about the same diameter as Skylab and extremely large and spacious compared to the ISS.

I expect a typical household room to have a sandwich layout--a roughly 2m slab of empty space sandwiched between two "floors" full of "stuff". This "stuff" would include cabinets, appliaces, beds, seats, tables, interface screens, etc.

Noclevername
2012-Oct-11, 04:43 PM
The walls/floors/ceilings (have to come up with a new terminology) could have lots of anchor points for cloth room dividers, or a light netting to grab, or to anchor cords that can crisscross the room's interior volume. Rearrange as desired. The netting or fabric might also be offset a few inches or more from the walls to give residents a resilient "landing" if there are kids or overly exuberant adults in the house. Like living in a house made of trampolines...

ZunarJ5
2012-Oct-11, 05:39 PM
Some images of freefall environments I've made

A large open bubble in orbit
http://www.orionsarm.com/eg-article/465107020ee57

A 'smoke ring', a fantastically large freefall circumstellar habitat first imagined by Larry Niven
http://www.orionsarm.com/eg-article/48473da1cd9bc

Microgravity habitats could be almost any shape and size, although they would tend to self-gravitate
http://www.orionsarm.com/eg-article/4b599f9cd84ba

Hmmm, for some reason I can't access orions arm at all right now. Is the site down?

Noclevername
2012-Oct-11, 05:42 PM
I can access it.

Noclevername
2012-Oct-11, 06:12 PM
Depending on the shape of the habitat, homes might be all sorts of odd shapes. Spheres, domes, cubes, tetrahedrons, cylinders, cones, "honeycomb" hexes, or irregular forms slipped anywhere there's enough open volume. This might make for an interesting real estate market, with customers vying for "prime" shapes...

Solfe
2012-Oct-11, 06:24 PM
3 to 1 ellipses can be packed pretty tight and have an interesting texture with lots of space for plumbing. http://www.pack-any-shape.com for images.

ZunarJ5
2012-Oct-11, 06:29 PM
Lots of great responses!

Many of the responses address the difficulty of maneuvering through open spaces in microgravity. The nets, poles, tethers, and other objects with which to gain leverage are sure to be found. The other thoughts on this were thrusters and using airflow to propel and maneuver.

What about using magnetism? If we are "hand waving" away the biological problems with adapting to this environment can we just as easily throw in some kind of system where the occupants have, oh, I don't know... maybe, special belts or something, that allow them to magnetically propel themselves about their habitat?

How focused can something like this be? Is placement of the magnets on the belt a good idea? Are shoes or gloves a better idea? Does it matter?

ZunarJ5
2012-Oct-11, 06:31 PM
Going back to the architecture, how about sculpted water? I can imagine some device to swirl water around into a torus, contunally spinning. Maybe a pinwheel of large loops like bubble wands, mounted on a turning shaft, just the right speed to prevent the water from flinging off into the walls. Other more exotic shapes may be possible.

Love this idea. Fountains and duck ponds are common in Earths cities...

ZunarJ5
2012-Oct-11, 06:39 PM
I have actually been putting a lot of thought into this, but on the small scale--on the level of a house and its interior design. Simple little things like chairs and tables need to be completely rethought. Obviously, stairs aren't necessary, nor is organization into flat spread out floors.

It's tempting to simply model everything on the ISS, but the ISS is really cramped and "all business". Comfortable homes would be more spacious and feature mostly creature comforts--not endless work stations and hardware modules. Skylab was more spacious, but it was a first learning experience where no one really knew how usable everything would be until they tried it.

Bold - I couldn't agree more. These people live here, every day, all day... it is their home and as such should feel like home. But, it isn't a home like anything we have ever experienced... I find myself looking about my own home and wondering at the possibilities.


... I expect a typical household room to have a sandwich layout--a roughly 2m slab of empty space sandwiched between two "floors" full of "stuff". This "stuff" would include cabinets, appliaces, beds, seats, tables, interface screens, etc.

This is interesting. Trying to imagine myself in that room gives me a bit of anxiety, like I'm either going to bump my head or step on a leggo... and it makes me want to grip my chairs arms and stay seated!

Noclevername
2012-Oct-11, 06:41 PM
Lots of great responses!

Many of the responses address the difficulty of maneuvering through open spaces in microgravity. The nets, poles, tethers, and other objects with which to gain leverage are sure to be found. The other thoughts on this were thrusters and using airflow to propel and maneuver.

What about using magnetism? If we are "hand waving" away the biological problems with adapting to this environment can we just as easily throw in some kind of system where the occupants have, oh, I don't know... maybe, special belts or something, that allow them to magnetically propel themselves about their habitat?

How focused can something like this be? Is placement of the magnets on the belt a good idea? Are shoes or gloves a better idea? Does it matter?

It probably won't provide much motion unless you have the station itself surrounded with a very strong magnetic field. If the power to that goes out everyone's stranded. Easier to just flap wings, kick fins or carry a compressed-air jet.

If you curve the tunnels, you can even have people run along them, like the exercise torus in 2001. Bodies in motion tend to go straight, if the tunnel curves they'll be pushed against it enough to gain traction.

Ara Pacis
2012-Oct-11, 10:54 PM
Do you really mean 8 foot by 8 foot by 8 foot? Because that is TINY. It would be extremely difficult for even a short person to get stuck in the middle of that.

I'm guessing you actually mean yards or meters, but that's implausibly large for a household room.

Anyway, a central pole would provide a convenient thing to grab for anyone within a 2m radius. That's good for one way traffic, but two or more parallel poles separated by 2m would be better since they would allow two way traffic as well as allowing for people to stop for various reasons without blocking things. This implies a corridor about 6m in diameter--about the same diameter as Skylab and extremely large and spacious compared to the ISS.

I expect a typical household room to have a sandwich layout--a roughly 2m slab of empty space sandwiched between two "floors" full of "stuff". This "stuff" would include cabinets, appliaces, beds, seats, tables, interface screens, etc.

Depends on how tall/long people are. People of average height these days have an arm reach of less than 8ft. Do the math.

IsaacKuo
2012-Oct-11, 11:29 PM
Depends on how tall/long people are. People of average height these days have an arm reach of less than 8ft. Do the math.
Average people also have legs, as well as their arms. What is the distance between the tip of your toe to the tip of your longest finger when you stretch your hand up and tip toe?

Ara Pacis
2012-Oct-12, 08:13 AM
Average people also have legs, as well as their arms. What is the distance between the tip of your toe to the tip of your longest finger when you stretch your hand up and tip toe?

Less than 8 ft, which is what I've been saying, and I used to be average height.

eburacum45
2012-Oct-12, 08:47 AM
One thing that would make life more comfortable in zero-gee habitats would be a really smart microgravity toilet. I am in horror of the arrangements they currently use (mirrors! cameras! gloves!) and wouldn't really be happy in microgravity until that could be reliably automated somehow. Microgravity toilets really suck (or at least they should)...

Another useful bit of kit would be a reliable 3D positioning system, something like the Canadarm on the ISS. anything that needs to be held stationary in space, including people, could be held by one or more of these. In fact a large microgravity space might have arrays of robotic arms on every surface facing inwards, positioning objects and people in 3D space and passing them from arm to arm when they want to change position. In a technologicallly advanced habitat the arms would be controlled by the users via speech, neural linkage, and/or by friendly AI systems.

Van Rijn
2012-Oct-12, 09:09 AM
Another useful bit of kit would be a reliable 3D positioning system, something like the Canadarm on the ISS. anything that needs to be held stationary in space, including people, could be held by one or more of these. In fact a large microgravity space might have arrays of robotic arms on every surface facing inwards, positioning objects and people in 3D space and passing them from arm to arm when they want to change position. In a technologicallly advanced habitat the arms would be controlled by the users via speech, neural linkage, and/or by friendly AI systems.

Yes, I was thinking about the automation side too. Ducted fan propelled robots could be very useful in a pressurized environment. For one thing, junk/debris collectors would be very important - any modestly sized object a bit larger than a dust particle but small enough to breathe in could be very dangerous. It would be useful to have automated systems to catch debris. Also, if you do have open spaces big enough where it's possible to to get caught away from the walls, it would be nice to have robots that could come collect you if needed. And mini-rotor robot swarms could be very useful to help move things around.

IsaacKuo
2012-Oct-12, 02:55 PM
Less than 8 ft, which is what I've been saying, and I used to be average height.

You claimed "arm reach" was less than 8 ft, but whatever. If you include the use of all body parts--not just the arms, then it would be ridiculously difficult for even a short person to somehow get "stuck" in the middle of an 8 foot cube room. The slightest bit of momentum in any direction would bring a wall within reach of either the arms or legs to push off with. With a room this tiny, all it takes is one push off any wall to get robust motion toward the opposite wall in no time.

In contrast, with an 8 meter cube room, it's certainly conceivable for air resistance to bring a slow drifting person to a near stop somewhere in the interior of the volume. A person could plausibly get stuck in that situation for an uncomfortably long time. But like I said, that's an implausibly cavernous space for a household room.

With a cavernous room, you can't just randomly push off lightly from a wall with comfortable results. You'll end up on some random vector toward some unplanned point on one of the other walls, with possibly a long time before reaching it. In the meantime, you're tumbling through space with practically no control.

But with a tiny 8 foot room, any random push of any wall will just send you toward the opposite wall with so little drifting time that there's no problem with tumbling. Really, this is TINY compared to Skylab.

profloater
2012-Oct-12, 03:29 PM
One thing that would make life more comfortable in zero-gee habitats would be a really smart microgravity toilet. I am in horror of the arrangements they currently use (mirrors! cameras! gloves!) and wouldn't really be happy in microgravity until that could be reliably automated somehow. Microgravity toilets really suck (or at least they should)...

Another useful bit of kit would be a reliable 3D positioning system, something like the Canadarm on the ISS. anything that needs to be held stationary in space, including people, could be held by one or more of these. In fact a large microgravity space might have arrays of robotic arms on every surface facing inwards, positioning objects and people in 3D space and passing them from arm to arm when they want to change position. In a technologicallly advanced habitat the arms would be controlled by the users via speech, neural linkage, and/or by friendly AI systems. Yes the standard travel tube is four feet diameter on 17 foot centres the standard living module is only 12 oot cube with rounded corners. This includes a sleeping tube, ablutions tube (fully automated and self cleaning of course) some storage containers and the main entertainments space with the usual infinity surfaces, hologram, physical feedback exoskelton and mind games receiver/transmitter. As standard there is just one four foot diameter door but other doors to adjacent modules are possible for communal living.

ZunarJ5
2012-Oct-12, 04:41 PM
I was thinking about plant life... arboretums, gardens, green houses, and parks...

If we can pretend that humanoids are adapting to microgravity then certainly we can pretend that plants have been adapted as well. In what ways though? This it seems to me is a more difficult problem.

I can picture climbing vines, mosses, maybe even grasses and possibly strangely shaped shrubs... but what about trees? How does the tree make sense of its environment in a 0 g habitat?

cjameshuff
2012-Oct-12, 05:58 PM
It occurs to me that you'd want to have lots of rounded edges and padding, because you don't really want people having thrusters (think of the exhaust problems)

Thrusters needn't have harmful exhaust any more than the fans in your computer do.

Ara Pacis
2012-Oct-12, 09:37 PM
You claimed "arm reach" was less than 8 ft, but whatever. If you include the use of all body parts--not just the arms, then it would be ridiculously difficult for even a short person to somehow get "stuck" in the middle of an 8 foot cube room. The slightest bit of momentum in any direction would bring a wall within reach of either the arms or legs to push off with. With a room this tiny, all it takes is one push off any wall to get robust motion toward the opposite wall in no time.

That's correct. I just checked and I can't touch the ceiling. And yes, arm reach includes standing, even on tippy-toes. Did you think I meant while sitting? I mention 8ft because it's a standard building metric in the US. Things may be different in the future. The rooms may be bigger, people may be bigger, people may be smaller, people may have tools or techniques to get them unstuck. The 8'x8'x8' room demonstrates just how small a room may be where someone becomes temporarily stuck based on current averages.


In contrast, with an 8 meter cube roomWhy do you keep bringing up this strawman?


With a cavernous room, you can't just randomly push off lightly from a wall with comfortable results. You'll end up on some random vector toward some unplanned point on one of the other walls, with possibly a long time before reaching it. In the meantime, you're tumbling through space with practically no control.Or while sleeping slight movements, such as slow cushion rebound or minor accelerations in the vehicle/habitat may cause a person to drift imperceptibly into a position that is out of reach of something.


But with a tiny 8 foot room, any random push of any wall will just send you toward the opposite wall with so little drifting time that there's no problem with tumbling. Really, this is TINY compared to Skylab.Assuming you can touch the opposite wall. If you're in in reach of one of the walls, then you're not stuck in the middle of the room out of reach of one of the walls.

Ara Pacis
2012-Oct-12, 09:48 PM
I agree with that, the humans would tend towards long prehensile feet like monkeys.I don't know about evolution, as our current feet serve as gool levers for launching oneself across a distance, which might be as useful or more useful than clinging.


The tubes would have clever moving handrails and might well be a complex one way system.I like that idea. Even non-motive tubeways might be one way, because head-to-head collisions could result in concussions.


For sleeping, if still part of human experience, some would go for ankle and wrist tethers but most opt for sleeping bags.Maybe, but a lot of people like to hold onto something while they sleep, so some people may sleep while hugging an upholstered pole while wrapped in a comforter that wraps around both. Alternately, some people may want to cuddle up into the fetal position inside a little, private cubby hole, like a kitty-kat. Maybe it could be both, so a small, upholstered cubby-bunk will also allow a body pillow to have its ends strapped to the walls. However, my conception of the idea of just being strapped to the middle of a flat wall in the open makes me feel vulnerable and unsafe and slightly agoraphobic.

IsaacKuo
2012-Oct-12, 10:16 PM
One thing that would make life more comfortable in zero-gee habitats would be a really smart microgravity toilet. I am in horror of the arrangements they currently use (mirrors! cameras! gloves!) and wouldn't really be happy in microgravity until that could be reliably automated somehow. Microgravity toilets really suck (or at least they should)...

I suspect this is a problem which will be solved with less restrictive space/mass requirements. Current space toilets do use air suction, and seem pretty user friendly for that part of thnigs. Add in a sewage system to flush away solid waste and toilet paper production, and you've pretty much solved the problem.

Alternatively, toilet paper isn't strictly necessary. One possibility is something which fits tightly via a flexible cushion "lip" and suction. Within this airtight region, water sprays are used to clean the skin. The user presses one button for water spray and another button for hot air drying. (Voice activation and automated timing could be other options.) Cyclic airflow would direct the dirty water and waste to the sewage pipes.


Another useful bit of kit would be a reliable 3D positioning system, something like the Canadarm on the ISS. anything that needs to be held stationary in space, including people, could be held by one or more of these. In fact a large microgravity space might have arrays of robotic arms on every surface facing inwards, positioning objects and people in 3D space and passing them from arm to arm when they want to change position. In a technologicallly advanced habitat the arms would be controlled by the users via speech, neural linkage, and/or by friendly AI systems.

This seems like technological overkill, to me. Rather than having robot arms everywhere, you could just have a few mobile helper robots. A helper robot could simply be an arm with hands on both ends. It can grab onto any anchor point, and can move itself to where it's needed by "swinging" from anchor point to anchor point. Depending on what the walls are like, magnets or suction or "gecko feet" could be used instead of needing anchor points.

Also, helper robots could have thrusters to fly in addition to being able to monkey swing from place to place. My intuition is that the best option for flight would be simple compressed air thrusters. These are much less efficient than fans, but they're very compact and are well suited for instantaneous impulses.

IsaacKuo
2012-Oct-12, 10:28 PM
Yes the standard travel tube is four feet diameter on 17 foot centres the standard living module is only 12 oot cube with rounded corners.
A diameter of four feet is extremely cramped, and you would have a lot of problems getting past each other--especially when carrying stuff. Think about the requirements while wearing a backpack or while carrying someone to a medical clinic.

I suggest a 6m diameter travel tube, with four poles running down them (each 2m apart from each other, and 2m from the outer wall). These poles make it easy to have four lanes of traffic--two in one direction and two in the other. If someone is slow or wants to rest or needs to do something with something/someone they're carrying, it's not a big deal to shift over to the unblocked or faster moving pole. If you decide that you want to turn around, you don't have to deal with annoying one-way tubes.

Anything which can fit through a 2m by 6m doorway can be transported through this tube without modification. For special purposes, the poles can be removed to allow very large hardware through.


As standard there is just one four foot diameter door but other doors to adjacent modules are possible for communal living.

A four foot diameter door is very small. A lot of furniture and appliances wouldn't fit. In particular, storage cabinets and refridgerators are problematic.

IsaacKuo
2012-Oct-12, 10:43 PM
That's correct. I just checked and I can't touch the ceiling. And yes, arm reach includes standing, even on tippy-toes. Did you think I meant while sitting? I mention 8ft because it's a standard building metric in the US. Things may be different in the future. The rooms may be bigger, people may be bigger, people may be smaller, people may have tools or techniques to get them unstuck. The 8'x8'x8' room demonstrates just how small a room may be where someone becomes temporarily stuck based on current averages.
No, sorry. I do not find your example plausible at all. Like I said, it would be extremely difficult for even a short person to get stuck in a room that tiny.

Why do you keep bringing up this strawman?
It's not a strawman. It's an example where it IS plausible to get stuck in the middle. A strawman is an example used simply for purposes of tearing it down. But I'm not tearing down this example. I'm building it up.

Or while sleeping slight movements, such as slow cushion rebound or minor accelerations in the vehicle/habitat may cause a person to drift imperceptibly into a position that is out of reach of something.
While sleeping? Anyone who sleeps unconfined should expect to wake up soon by bumping into some wall in some random orientation. If it's in a room as tiny as an 8 foot cube, even minor rebounds from a cushion will send the person bumping into the opposite wall within seconds.

I don't think you appreciate how weak air resistance is on the human body at these speeds.

(Even if air resistance were a significant issue, it wouldn't actually want to make the human body end up stuck in the middle of this room. Any realistic habitation will have forced air currents to circulate breathing oxygen etc. But this is the sort of thing that affects loose sheets of paper, not human bodies.)

Assuming you can touch the opposite wall. If you're in in reach of one of the walls, then you're not stuck in the middle of the room out of reach of one of the walls.

In any plausible scenario, you're not going to be stuck in the middle of a tiny 8 foot room for long.

IsaacKuo
2012-Oct-12, 10:53 PM
Maybe, but a lot of people like to hold onto something while they sleep, so some people may sleep while hugging an upholstered pole while wrapped in a comforter that wraps around both. Alternately, some people may want to cuddle up into the fetal position inside a little, private cubby hole, like a kitty-kat. Maybe it could be both, so a small, upholstered cubby-bunk will also allow a body pillow to have its ends strapped to the walls. However, my conception of the idea of just being strapped to the middle of a flat wall in the open makes me feel vulnerable and unsafe and slightly agoraphobic.

I think the most common type of bed will look a lot like a familiar bed--just flatter, like a futon. The main difference is that the covers will have magnets so they stick to the bed. Using magnets lets you or your partner slide freely underneath the sheets.

IsaacKuo
2012-Oct-12, 10:59 PM
I was thinking about plant life... arboretums, gardens, green houses, and parks...

If we can pretend that humanoids are adapting to microgravity then certainly we can pretend that plants have been adapted as well. In what ways though? This it seems to me is a more difficult problem.
Plenty of plants have been grown on the ISS. They seem to generally manage.

I can picture climbing vines, mosses, maybe even grasses and possibly strangely shaped shrubs... but what about trees? How does the tree make sense of its environment in a 0 g habitat?
Obviously they haven't tried growing anything as big as a tree on the ISS. Still, a tree would plausibly make sense of its environment in much the same way as plants so far have--leaves orienting toward light and roots growing toward water/nutrients.

cjameshuff
2012-Oct-13, 02:18 AM
There's no reason handholds/footholds need to make a room more cramped. A tubular structure of open netting running down the center of a room would allow you to greatly increase the size of a room without risk of being stranded. The tube would also be a natural place to enter or leave the room, providing a way for people to redirect their motion to the desired area on the way in, or avoid bouncing everything in the room on the way out.

I would prefer sheets and tubes of netting to ropes, however. A single line provides little for stereo vision to work with in the wrong orientation, only allows reasonable torques around axes perpendicular to the rope, and could cause painful or even dangerous collisions. Nets spread the impact in case of an accidental collision, provide multiple points of contact for maneuvering, and provide a much better visual reference.



This seems like technological overkill, to me. Rather than having robot arms everywhere, you could just have a few mobile helper robots. A helper robot could simply be an arm with hands on both ends. It can grab onto any anchor point, and can move itself to where it's needed by "swinging" from anchor point to anchor point. Depending on what the walls are like, magnets or suction or "gecko feet" could be used instead of needing anchor points.

How about something in between? Articulated/telescoping structures that can easily be locked in place, to position light sources, work areas, decorative objects, etc.



Also, helper robots could have thrusters to fly in addition to being able to monkey swing from place to place. My intuition is that the best option for flight would be simple compressed air thrusters. These are much less efficient than fans, but they're very compact and are well suited for instantaneous impulses.

They also require considerable amounts of plumbing and precisely electronically actuated valves. Fans would be much easier.



In any plausible scenario, you're not going to be stuck in the middle of a tiny 8 foot room for long.

Right. If you somehow do manage to strand yourself in such a small area, the ventilation system will have you in reach of a handhold in short order. Heck, just huffing and puffing might do the job.

Ara Pacis
2012-Oct-13, 05:49 AM
I suspect this is a problem which will be solved with less restrictive space/mass requirements. Current space toilets do use air suction, and seem pretty user friendly for that part of thnigs. Add in a sewage system to flush away solid waste and toilet paper production, and you've pretty much solved the problem.

Alternatively, toilet paper isn't strictly necessary. One possibility is something which fits tightly via a flexible cushion "lip" and suction. Within this airtight region, water sprays are used to clean the skin. The user presses one button for water spray and another button for hot air drying. (Voice activation and automated timing could be other options.) Cyclic airflow would direct the dirty water and waste to the sewage pipes.Sounds like you've reinvented the bidet.


This seems like technological overkill, to me. Rather than having robot arms everywhere, you could just have a few mobile helper robots. A helper robot could simply be an arm with hands on both ends. It can grab onto any anchor point, and can move itself to where it's needed by "swinging" from anchor point to anchor point. Depending on what the walls are like, magnets or suction or "gecko feet" could be used instead of needing anchor points.I'd be wary of "gecko feet" or velcro if small bits can come off. Magnets will work if you have metal walls, which may be a bad idea if you want to use radio inside the habitat, unless you want to stream endless miles of networking cable. Magnets may work if the wall has metal "studs" at modular locations, such as corners or predictable locations behind/inside the wall cover. Adhesives might work, or the Duo type of fastener system used for tollway transponders.


Also, helper robots could have thrusters to fly in addition to being able to monkey swing from place to place. My intuition is that the best option for flight would be simple compressed air thrusters. These are much less efficient than fans, but they're very compact and are well suited for instantaneous impulses.Do you mean canisters of pressurized gas? They'd have to be constantly refilled.

Ara Pacis
2012-Oct-13, 06:12 AM
A diameter of four feet is extremely cramped, and you would have a lot of problems getting past each other--especially when carrying stuff. Think about the requirements while wearing a backpack or while carrying someone to a medical clinic.

I suggest a 6m diameter travel tube, with four poles running down them (each 2m apart from each other, and 2m from the outer wall). These poles make it easy to have four lanes of traffic--two in one direction and two in the other. If someone is slow or wants to rest or needs to do something with something/someone they're carrying, it's not a big deal to shift over to the unblocked or faster moving pole. If you decide that you want to turn around, you don't have to deal with annoying one-way tubes.Six Meters, almost 20 feet? How much room do you think one person needs to pull oneself along a pole? Will they be pulling themselves along sideways? (Actually, that might be better in some ways, so one can see where one is going instead of bending the neck.) Why are your poles 2m away from the walls? It would make more sense to place them a few inches away from the wall so that you have room to grasp it and so there is less length for anchor posts and less chance of someone hitting a body part on an anchor post. Also, how much friction do you expect people to experience when moving along this tubes that would make someone so tired that they need to rest. I don't expect air resistance to be that strong, so one push should be good enough to get someone from one end to the other eventually, minus any friction from bumping the wall or pole. Sure, some people might want to keep accelerating, which could be hazardous to their health and someone else's. Similarly rapidly changing direction in the tube might be hazardous to one's health. Better to have lobbies to turn around at various locations. And if people are transporting large or massy items, they should use the active transporation system or a freight-way.


A four foot diameter door is very small. A lot of furniture and appliances wouldn't fit. In particular, storage cabinets and refridgerators are problematic.Why? They seem to be able to get through even smaller width doors on Earth. In space, both items are likely to be redesigned anyways. Refrigerators may work differently in 0g, requiring an active heat sink for the radiator. Cabinets would almost certainly be modular flat-pack.

IsaacKuo
2012-Oct-13, 06:12 AM
I think the most common type of bed will look a lot like a familiar bed--just flatter, like a futon. The main difference is that the covers will have magnets so they stick to the bed. Using magnets lets you or your partner slide freely underneath the sheets.
On second thought, the magnets should be in the mattress. The covers can have steel buttons, which stick to the magnetic buttons of the mattress. By incorporating the magnets into the mattress, you avoid the problem of cover buttons sticking to each other.

Ara Pacis
2012-Oct-13, 06:34 AM
No, sorry. I do not find your example plausible at all. Like I said, it would be extremely difficult for even a short person to get stuck in a room that tiny.It's simple math. If you can't reach something, then you're out of reach.


It's not a strawman. It's an example where it IS plausible to get stuck in the middle. A strawman is an example used simply for purposes of tearing it down. But I'm not tearing down this example. I'm building it up.You're using an extrapolation to invalidate what my model. To use your words, you were tearing down my argument by building up another. That's called a Strawman. In fact, "building" is the metaphor used with strawman arguments, e.g. "he built/constructed a strawman argument". We agree on the concept of getting stuck, that's not at issue. What we disagree on is how small a room may be to result in such an inconvenience.

I give no timelimit, upper or lower, with regards to being stuck or methods for getting unstuck, or furnishings that reduce the size of the room. The only qualifier is that one be out of reach of the structure. The basic answer is basic math.


While sleeping? Anyone who sleeps unconfined should expect to wake up soon by bumping into some wall in some random orientation. If it's in a room as tiny as an 8 foot cube, even minor rebounds from a cushion will send the person bumping into the opposite wall within seconds.I'm not talking about body movement resulting in a push-off, I mean cushion elasticity. I also said small accelerations of the structure.


I don't think you appreciate how weak air resistance is on the human body at these speeds.

(Even if air resistance were a significant issue, it wouldn't actually want to make the human body end up stuck in the middle of this room. Any realistic habitation will have forced air currents to circulate breathing oxygen etc. But this is the sort of thing that affects loose sheets of paper, not human bodies.)Who said anything about air resistance?


In any plausible scenario, you're not going to be stuck in the middle of a tiny 8 foot room for long."For long"? Then you're agreeing that someone can get stuck, just not for long. Did you think that I was claiming it would be a common occurrence? It should have been obvious from my post that I was referring to theoretical minima.

Ara Pacis
2012-Oct-13, 06:43 AM
I think the most common type of bed will look a lot like a familiar bed--just flatter, like a futon. The main difference is that the covers will have magnets so they stick to the bed. Using magnets lets you or your partner slide freely underneath the sheets.

On second thought, the magnets should be in the mattress. The covers can have steel buttons, which stick to the magnetic buttons of the mattress. By incorporating the magnets into the mattress, you avoid the problem of cover buttons sticking to each other.

That doesn't sound vary comfortable. As you move around, you'll ether feel confined (if the magnets hold the covers tight) or the magnets will let the buttons slip and one starts bouncing around in a loose tent. Most people I know like to sink into their bed and be surrounded by soft stuff with covers draped over them to some extent. you'd need something springy, I think.

IsaacKuo
2012-Oct-13, 06:46 AM
Do you mean canisters of pressurized gas? They'd have to be constantly refilled.
So what? Batteries need to be constantly recharged.

I was thinking in terms of an integral air compressor, rather than periodic recharging. The advantage over fans is that it doesn't need high power in order to provide quick instant impulses.

Ara Pacis
2012-Oct-13, 06:49 AM
There's no reason handholds/footholds need to make a room more cramped. A tubular structure of open netting running down the center of a room would allow you to greatly increase the size of a room without risk of being stranded. The tube would also be a natural place to enter or leave the room, providing a way for people to redirect their motion to the desired area on the way in, or avoid bouncing everything in the room on the way out.

I would prefer sheets and tubes of netting to ropes, however. A single line provides little for stereo vision to work with in the wrong orientation, only allows reasonable torques around axes perpendicular to the rope, and could cause painful or even dangerous collisions. Nets spread the impact in case of an accidental collision, provide multiple points of contact for maneuvering, and provide a much better visual reference.I'd be careful of netting. Body parts can get caught in them.


How about something in between? Articulated/telescoping structures that can easily be locked in place, to position light sources, work areas, decorative objects, etc.Articulated task lamps already exist. So do fold out tables and hinges. What sort of stuff do you want to be positioned away from a partition wall and why?

Ara Pacis
2012-Oct-13, 06:57 AM
So what? Batteries need to be constantly recharged.But that can be done automatically at a docking station.


I was thinking in terms of an integral air compressor, rather than periodic recharging. The advantage over fans is that it doesn't need high power in order to provide quick instant impulses.How massy and power hungry and noisy would an air compressor be? I've seen the small ones used in shops, how big are these bots supposed to be and what are they supposed to do again? I have a small compressor that's used to inflate a mattress, but I'm not sure if it's powerful enough to compress something much above ambient.

A fan can be ducted and can vary the speed of it's blades. A jet is basically off or full blast and I'd be curious to see how well it could be ducted. Which one's uses more energy?

IsaacKuo
2012-Oct-13, 07:50 AM
Six Meters, almost 20 feet? How much room do you think one person needs to pull oneself along a pole? Will they be pulling themselves along sideways? (Actually, that might be better in some ways, so one can see where one is going instead of bending the neck.) Why are your poles 2m away from the walls?
The poles are 2m away from the walls and each other in order to provide a comfortable amount of space, considering traffic in opposite directions and carrying stuff/people. I'm also considering that not everyone will be in perfect health.

The usual method of travel would be to float along a pole, with the legs "hanging" below the pole. The pose is like sitting on a broomstick, but without contact to eliminate friction. The idea is to normally only contact the pole with your hands to get yourself started and to make fine adjustments to keep yourself on course. However, keeping your thighs to the sides of the pole means that any uncomfortable deviation can be dealt with instantly simply by clamping your legs together. This is also the usual method of braking.


It would make more sense to place them a few inches away from the wall so that you have room to grasp it and so there is less length for anchor posts and less chance of someone hitting a body part on an anchor post.

In zero gee, there's no need to have lots of anchor posts. Most poles could simply run the full length of a tube without any anchor posts at all. Anchor posts could be associated with major intersections, which deserve slowing down and extra attention anyway.

But what are you thinking, having travel poles only a few inches away from the wall? What sort of motion do you expect? A few inches is insufficient room to wrap your legs on opposite sides of the pole. You more or less can't meaningfully interact with the travel pole with your legs. That would only leave your hands. That doesn't provide much leverage to keep the lower body (including legs) under any sort of positive control.

The method of travel I suggest above solves the leverage problem by providing a failsafe. I don't see any magical way by which contact with hands alone can consistently provide leverage to prevent the lower body and legs from swinging around. So instead, I provide for a failsafe using the legs to avoid it. A different alternative might be to figure out a way to use the legs in a more positive manner--but the best I've thought of for that is to wrap your legs around the pole, like a fireman sliding down a firepole. However, this is not something everyone can do, and it introduces a high amount of friction.

Also, how much friction do you expect people to experience when moving along this tubes that would make someone so tired that they need to rest.
Friction is not so much the issue, but rather effort. It takes frequent adjustments to keep yourself on course, unless you go with the firepole method of "crawling" along the pole (in which case friction is the big issue).

I'm considering that not everyone will be in perfect health, and some people will need to rest frequently no matter how little effort is involved.

I don't expect air resistance to be that strong, so one push should be good enough to get someone from one end to the other eventually, minus any friction from bumping the wall or pole.
Bumping into a wall is not good. That's the Earth equivalent of a short fall, which commonly causes significant injury and death--particularly among the elderly. It's important to only have controlled contact with the wall.

Sure, some people might want to keep accelerating, which could be hazardous to their health and someone else's. Similarly rapidly changing direction in the tube might be hazardous to one's health. Better to have lobbies to turn around at various locations.
This is pretty ridiculous if you consider applying these principles to real life corridors and sidewalks. Real life foot traffic is two way! Who would put up with cramped one way corridors and being forced to keep walking until a lobby before being allowed to turn around?

And if people are transporting large or massy items, they should use the active transporation system or a freight-way.
In zero gee, it really doesn't make sense to use an active transportation system for the "last mile". But that "last mile" represents a huge volume, in 3 dimensions. A 1.6km radius from a tube station is a volume of 17 billion cubic meters. At ISS population density, that translates to a population of 120 million people.

Personally, I think that habitats of even 120 million people are excessive. So, generally I don't think an active transportation system is necessary for reasonably sized habitats.


Why? They seem to be able to get through even smaller width doors on Earth.
Those doors are taller than 4ft, thus having a diameter larger than 4ft. A 4ft diameter door, even if it's circular, is extremely restrictive compared to a typical household door.

In space, both items are likely to be redesigned anyways. Refrigerators may work differently in 0g, requiring an active heat sink for the radiator. Cabinets would almost certainly be modular flat-pack.
Flat-pack? That may be fine for some people, but many (if not most) people will want something classier and more sturdy--especially if cabinets are expected to incorporate comfortable padded doors. Folding flat also severely restricts handle design, and foothold/handhold design.

Anyway, there's only so much that flat-pack can do when it comes to making it fit within a 4ft diameter. It's not like an Earth door which is tall in one dimension.

There's also a significant convenience factor to being able to move around cabinets while they are full of stuff. This is more of an issue for internal doors, of course.

IsaacKuo
2012-Oct-13, 08:00 AM
That doesn't sound vary comfortable. As you move around, you'll ether feel confined (if the magnets hold the covers tight) or the magnets will let the buttons slip and one starts bouncing around in a loose tent. Most people I know like to sink into their bed and be surrounded by soft stuff with covers draped over them to some extent. you'd need something springy, I think.
There's no problem of bouncing around loose so long as enough magnets around the edges still hold. If desired, the buttons may be larger/stronger/more numerous around the edges to ensure this, and/or there can be a backup system of flexible tether loops at the corners.

I don't know why you think the fit must be tight. With magnets, the fit can be as tight or as loose as you want. It's a function of the button spacing of the cover vs the button spacing of the mattress.

IsaacKuo
2012-Oct-13, 08:10 AM
But that can be done automatically at a docking station.
So can refilling compressed air, if desired.

How massy and power hungry and noisy would an air compressor be? I've seen the small ones used in shops, how big are these bots supposed to be and what are they supposed to do again? I have a small compressor that's used to inflate a mattress, but I'm not sure if it's powerful enough to compress something much above ambient.
I have a small compressor that's used to inflate tires. It can go up to 300psi, which is well above ambient.

A fan can be ducted and can vary the speed of it's blades. A jet is basically off or full blast and I'd be curious to see how well it could be ducted. Which one's uses more energy?
A fan is much more efficient. If you want continuous airflow, a fan is definitely the way to go. But in this case, bulk motion can already be provided with more efficiency by physically pushing off with the desired velocity vector. I see the compressed air being used for sudden collision avoidance and rapid attitude adjustments.

IsaacKuo
2012-Oct-13, 08:32 AM
It's simple math. If you can't reach something, then you're out of reach.
But I wouldn't call it being "stuck" if it's only for a few seconds or so.

You're using an extrapolation to invalidate what my model. To use your words, you were tearing down my argument by building up another. That's called a Strawman.
Wrong. A strawman argument is one where you misrepresent your opponent's position and then tear down the misrepresented position.


I give no timelimit, upper or lower, with regards to being stuck or methods for getting unstuck, or furnishings that reduce the size of the room. The only qualifier is that one be out of reach of the structure. The basic answer is basic math.

In that case, I consider your definition of "stuck" to be irrelevant. If I am "stuck" for only a few seconds, then I really do not care.

If I am "stuck" while asleep for fifteen seconds until I wake up bumping against another wall, then I really do not care. I'll feel stupid for falling asleep unconstrained, but that's my own fault.


I'm not talking about body movement resulting in a push-off, I mean cushion elasticity.

How is cushion elasticity supposed to magically push against the body? It can only act in reaction to body movement.


I also said small accelerations of the structure.

Which would of course be utterly insignificant compared to body motion. There's no need for a habitat's thrusters to provide any more acceleration than the ISS's, and more powerful thrusters would come at significant costs anyway. These accelerations are imperceptible; accelerations from small body movements are perceptible.


Who said anything about air resistance?

Air resistance is the only way to convert from motion toward the opposite wall into lack of motion toward the opposite wall.


"For long"? Then you're agreeing that someone can get stuck, just not for long. Did you think that I was claiming it would be a common occurrence? It should have been obvious from my post that I was referring to theoretical minima.

The only thing obvious from your post was that you thought it was a problem. Do you still think it's a problem? Or did you ever think it was a problem?

profloater
2012-Oct-13, 09:26 AM
A diameter of four feet is extremely cramped, and you would have a lot of problems getting past each other--especially when carrying stuff. Think about the requirements while wearing a backpack or while carrying someone to a medical clinic.

I suggest a 6m diameter travel tube, with four poles running down them (each 2m apart from each other, and 2m from the outer wall). These poles make it easy to have four lanes of traffic--two in one direction and two in the other. If someone is slow or wants to rest or needs to do something with something/someone they're carrying, it's not a big deal to shift over to the unblocked or faster moving pole. If you decide that you want to turn around, you don't have to deal with annoying one-way tubes.

Anything which can fit through a 2m by 6m doorway can be transported through this tube without modification. For special purposes, the poles can be removed to allow very large hardware through.



A four foot diameter door is very small. A lot of furniture and appliances wouldn't fit. In particular, storage cabinets and refridgerators are problematic.

I am assuming the tubes are one way with many intersections. Foor foot is good for current sized humans, six foot is too wide to reach the walls easily. Of course the doors are similar to the tubes and what are the fridges for? Food is made by the 3d food printer found in every habitation module. If you really need larger things they are made in modules that fit inside the four foot limit i.e inside a four foot sphere. Indeed transport spheres at 42 inches diameter and to be found all over the place! The 3D printer works on a food grains raw material. Plus water which is piped around in 6mm tubing.

Trees are interesting as well as g related enzymes they seek light and can be trained to follow a starting grid shape. Existing trees would adopt a new shape in zerog if they are wanted for some reason.

To go further into the sociology and therefore architecture, it will be necessary to define what is the purpose of this zero g community? Just to survive for its own sake? Or is it serving another distant community in some way?

cjameshuff
2012-Oct-13, 02:34 PM
I'd be careful of netting. Body parts can get caught in them.

And easily removed.



Articulated task lamps already exist. So do fold out tables and hinges. What sort of stuff do you want to be positioned away from a partition wall and why?

What sort of stuff do you ever want to position anywhere? As I said, light sources, work areas, decorative objects, etc.

eburacum45
2012-Oct-13, 02:52 PM
To go further into the sociology and therefore architecture, it will be necessary to define what is the purpose of this zero g community? Just to survive for its own sake? Or is it serving another distant community in some way?
Do communities have to have a purpose except survival? Perhaps they do; they could strive towards perfection, for instance. Or is that too undefined a goal? Space adapted humans and other sophonts could operate spacecraft and work in space for indefinite periods of time without having to return to a gravity environment at periodic intervals.

In less than a thousand years time the vast majority of humans or their successors could be space-adapted, never needing to travel to Earth or any other planet. Perhaps the optimum arrangement would be some sort of treatment that allows a human to quickly adapt to arbitrary periods in microgravity; but eventually there would be little need for the majority of the population of the Solar System to visit a planet, so it would be more a question of adapting people the other way round, and giving space-goers the correct constitution to survive in a planetary gravity well on a temporary basis.

eburacum45
2012-Oct-13, 03:15 PM
A helper robot could simply be an arm with hands on both ends. It can grab onto any anchor point, and can move itself to where it's needed by "swinging" from anchor point to anchor point. Depending on what the walls are like, magnets or suction or "gecko feet" could be used instead of needing anchor points.


Dextre is a current-day example of this sort of robot;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dextre
Large habitats could have considerable numbers of Dextre-type robots of various sizes, capable of moving objects about as well as keeping them still.

eburacum45
2012-Oct-13, 03:36 PM
In addition, any large bit of kit that might need to be positioned with accuracy in 3D space would routinely be designed with locating arms of its own.

IsaacKuo
2012-Oct-13, 06:09 PM
I would prefer sheets and tubes of netting to ropes, however. A single line provides little for stereo vision to work with in the wrong orientation, only allows reasonable torques around axes perpendicular to the rope, and could cause painful or even dangerous collisions. Nets spread the impact in case of an accidental collision, provide multiple points of contact for maneuvering, and provide a much better visual reference.

After thinking about this, I think a vertical "bamboo forest" of poles or taut cords would be best. First off, it resembles an intuitive natural environment--a bamboo forest. In use, people would keep themselves either "right-side-up" or "upside-down", depending on which "floor" they are using as "down". That way, the poles are always vertical from the user's perspective--perfect for stereo vision.

The reason I like this orientation is because it's easy to reach sideways toward a pole with your arm and/or leg. When you splay your arms and legs, you can "catch" a pole, and you end up swinging around sideways on a vertical axis. This is natural and intuitive and comfortable for us. In contrast, swinging forward or backward due to a collision with a horizontal pole would be like tripping--disorienting and alarming. Swinging around at some weird angle due to a pole at some odd angle would be even worse.

In addition, vertical poles are perfect for anchoring yourself by wrapping your legs and arms around. You can then smoothly pan around horizontally to face any "horizontal" direction.

IsaacKuo
2012-Oct-13, 06:17 PM
A bamboo forest of vertical poles would also be a good place to anchor pocket style hammocks. Such a hammock would have fabric/netting wrapping all the way around the user (netting around one end for the head). These hammocks could be quickly stowed against the "ceiling" by sliding them up. I think this would fit in very well in mil-SF, given the retro-naval feel.

Ara Pacis
2012-Oct-14, 12:32 AM
And easily removed.That's what I'm afraid of!


What sort of stuff do you ever want to position anywhere? As I said, light sources, work areas, decorative objects, etc. Specific question is specific.

Ara Pacis
2012-Oct-14, 01:32 AM
The poles are 2m away from the walls and each other in order to provide a comfortable amount of space, considering traffic in opposite directions and carrying stuff/people. I'm also considering that not everyone will be in perfect health.You don't think space will be at a premium?


The usual method of travel would be to float along a pole, with the legs "hanging" below the pole. The pose is like sitting on a broomstick, but without contact to eliminate friction. The idea is to normally only contact the pole with your hands to get yourself started and to make fine adjustments to keep yourself on course. However, keeping your thighs to the sides of the pole means that any uncomfortable deviation can be dealt with instantly simply by clamping your legs together. This is also the usual method of braking.Usual how? This is the first I've heard of it.


In zero gee, there's no need to have lots of anchor posts. Most poles could simply run the full length of a tube without any anchor posts at all. Anchor posts could be associated with major intersections, which deserve slowing down and extra attention anyway.How long will the poles be between anchor points of some kind and of what material, and how thick and how will you keep it from wobbling and bucking people off of it or whacking a guy in the nads?


But what are you thinking, having travel poles only a few inches away from the wall? What sort of motion do you expect? A few inches is insufficient room to wrap your legs on opposite sides of the pole. You more or less can't meaningfully interact with the travel pole with your legs. That would only leave your hands. That doesn't provide much leverage to keep the lower body (including legs) under any sort of positive control.

The method of travel I suggest above solves the leverage problem by providing a failsafe. I don't see any magical way by which contact with hands alone can consistently provide leverage to prevent the lower body and legs from swinging around.I don't recall you explaining your method of pole-riding in a previous post, how do you expect me to know what you meant. Linear time is linear. After watching some videos (http://youtu.be/VDu9z4SCTmc) of the astronauts in 0g, it looks like they can move using their arms to pull along without using their legs to grab anything. If someone feels it's necessary, they could use their toes to squeeze the rail. But that wouldn't be necessary in my design, since I'd use smaller tubes so they could also spread their legs to brake against the wall of the tube.


Bumping into a wall is not good. That's the Earth equivalent of a short fall, which commonly causes significant injury and death--particularly among the elderly. It's important to only have controlled contact with the wall.Depends on velocity.


This is pretty ridiculous if you consider applying these principles to real life corridors and sidewalks. Real life foot traffic is two way! Who would put up with cramped one way corridors and being forced to keep walking until a lobby before being allowed to turn around?Have you never been in a queue or a throng of people moving through a corridor such as at a sporting event, concert, Best Buy on Black Friday or student aid line in college? Sometimes you can't turnaround and go the other way until you get out of the hallway. If you've ever been on a moving sidewalk, such as at some airports, you'll also notice that there are short walls with moving handrails that prevent you from turning around and going the other way until you exit them. Same is true for escalators.

Also real life corridors have gravity and friction. If we all were using boards on an air-hockey floor, then your analogy might work. Also, it depends on what you mean by lobby, where I couldn't think of any other word to describe an area where you can have intersections and turnarounds. I'm thinking these would be short because they are like side streets. Meanwhile, major corridors would have active transport, such as a belt or a bucket conveyor that slows down and speeds up like a ski-lift.


In zero gee, it really doesn't make sense to use an active transportation system for the "last mile". But that "last mile" represents a huge volume, in 3 dimensions. A 1.6km radius from a tube station is a volume of 17 billion cubic meters. At ISS population density, that translates to a population of 120 million people.

Personally, I think that habitats of even 120 million people are excessive. So, generally I don't think an active transportation system is necessary for reasonably sized habitats.What are you talking about? Where'd this come from? And what is your point? Active will be used where it makes the most sense to use it.


Those doors are taller than 4ft, thus having a diameter larger than 4ft. A 4ft diameter door, even if it's circular, is extremely restrictive compared to a typical household door.Right, a 6ft refrigerator wouldn't fit through a 4ft door if you try to move it through the door sideways. Try changing the orientation. And I agree, a round door would be problematic for many reasons, such as replacing the door, so I'm thinking they would use a square or rounded-square design, unless it's meant to be gas tight.


Flat-pack? That may be fine for some people, but many (if not most) people will want something classier and more sturdy--especially if cabinets are expected to incorporate comfortable padded doors. Folding flat also severely restricts handle design, and foothold/handhold design.

Anyway, there's only so much that flat-pack can do when it comes to making it fit within a 4ft diameter. It's not like an Earth door which is tall in one dimension.Flat pack has to do with how it's packaged, not how it's put together or articulates (if it articulates). Like with refrigerators, most cabinets are designed for human ergonomics and are less than 4'x4' in two perpendicular dimensions. Get a tape measurer and check your major appliances, cabinetry, and furniture. Most of it will move through a 4'x4' opening, or can be disassembled into two pieces.


There's also a significant convenience factor to being able to move around cabinets while they are full of stuff. This is more of an issue for internal doors, of course.Are you confusing cabinetry for furniture or luggage? Even if you want mobile cabinetry or the space equivalent of grandma's china hutch, go for it. FI you want doors larger than 4', I won't complain. Inter-Residential hallways maybe should be 4'x8' for slow and less busy two way traffic, but for main passageways, I still think two one-way 4x4 or even 4'x8' corridors is all that's needed

Ara Pacis
2012-Oct-14, 01:44 AM
There's no problem of bouncing around loose so long as enough magnets around the edges still hold. If desired, the buttons may be larger/stronger/more numerous around the edges to ensure this, and/or there can be a backup system of flexible tether loops at the corners.I think some sort of clip-on spring-tension strap-roller would work better. A button on a magnet isn't springy and so it won't recreate the reaction of a blanket draping over a person on a bed on earth via gravity.


I don't know why you think the fit must be tight. With magnets, the fit can be as tight or as loose as you want. It's a function of the button spacing of the cover vs the button spacing of the mattress.If it's not tight, then a person will float loose. It may also wake them up if they get cold because the blanket is no longer creating a warm pocket but is open to let ventilation to blow in. If you look at how the astronauts do it, they often zip up in fitted sleeping bags (http://science.howstuffworks.com/sleep-in-space1.htm), perhaps for the same reason.

Ara Pacis
2012-Oct-14, 05:18 AM
But I wouldn't call it being "stuck" if it's only for a few seconds or so.How do you propose to get unstuck?


Wrong. A strawman argument is one where you misrepresent your opponent's position and then tear down the misrepresented position.Which is what you did.




In that case, I consider your definition of "stuck" to be irrelevant. If I am "stuck" for only a few seconds, then I really do not care.

If I am "stuck" while asleep for fifteen seconds until I wake up bumping against another wall, then I really do not care. I'll feel stupid for falling asleep unconstrained, but that's my own fault.On the contrary, it was my model, therefore my definition is the only one that can be considered relevant.


How is cushion elasticity supposed to magically push against the body? It can only act in reaction to body movement.Wrong, not if there are other sources of acceleration or compression, such as structure movements or anchors coming loose.


Which would of course be utterly insignificant compared to body motion. There's no need for a habitat's thrusters to provide any more acceleration than the ISS's, and more powerful thrusters would come at significant costs anyway. These accelerations are imperceptible; accelerations from small body movements are perceptible.THAT'S THE POINT. Imperceptible accelerations are imperceptible. Thank you for agreeing with me.


Air resistance is the only way to convert from motion toward the opposite wall into lack of motion toward the opposite wall.And, what's the point? You brought it up, not me, so I'm not sure what you're trying to claim. You need to connect the dots if you want people to understand what you're talking about.


The only thing obvious from your post was that you thought it was a problem. Do you still think it's a problem? Or did you ever think it was a problem? I think getting stuck may be a problem. The size of the problem will depend on the size of the space, with the minimal problem being the smallest space in which someone can become stuck out of reach.

IsaacKuo
2012-Oct-14, 07:04 AM
How do you propose to get unstuck?
Simple. You wait a few seconds, because you're already headed for another wall. This room is TINY.

THAT'S THE POINT. Imperceptible accelerations are imperceptible. Thank you for agreeing with me.
Wrong. These accelerations are so small that they are utterly insignificant. I already noted that the significant accelerations are due to body motion. These will produce perceptible motions that send you toward the opposite wall within seconds, so the imperceptible accelerations that are utterly swamped by body motion produced accelerations are utterly insignificant.

Do you think that a person who sleeps has no body motions? That's false. A person who sleeps breathes. This motion produces significant motions which will imply a significant reaction against whatever wall the person touched last.

The only "problem" with an unconstrained sleeping person in this tiny room is that they won't get any true sleep. They'll just wake up within moments or seconds of losing consciousness due to bumping into a wall randomly.

I think getting stuck may be a problem. The size of the problem will depend on the size of the space, with the minimal problem being the smallest space in which someone can become stuck out of reach.
Using your definition of "stuck", this is clearly wrong. Mathematically, there can be no such space. It's like asking for the smallest circle with a radius bigger than 1 meter. It doesn't exist. The closest you can mathematically provide is the limit, or least upper bound. But at the boundary case, you can't get stuck.

Oh well. I feel this argument has been going nowhere for quite some time. Whatever your point is, the bottom line is that I will never consider getting "stuck" to be a problem in a tiny 8 foot room. The real life experience is that this is a much smaller empty space than Skylab, and the Skylab astronauts did fine.

IsaacKuo
2012-Oct-14, 07:39 AM
I think some sort of clip-on spring-tension strap-roller would work better. A button on a magnet isn't springy and so it won't recreate the reaction of a blanket draping over a person on a bed on earth via gravity.
So what? The mattress and cover can be as springy or as stiff as the user wants. Just like here on Earth, this can be provided by padding. The amount of padding and the springiness of the padding is a matter of user preference, just like on Earth. I think most people will prefer soft thick pillow-like padding in both the mattress and the cover (something like a thick comforter). This means the user is sandwiched between pillows. But others will prefer less padding or no padding in either the mattress or cover.

If it's not tight, then a person will float loose.
Huh? Like I said, it can be as tight or loose as you want.

It may also wake them up if they get cold because the blanket is no longer creating a warm pocket but is open to let ventilation to blow in. If you look at how the astronauts do it, they often zip up in fitted sleeping bags, perhaps for the same reason.
I have no idea what link you were thinking of, but the link you did provide showed Sally Ride sleeping in a loose restraint which was only partially zipped up. The way she had it was open and loose, letting ventilation blow in. (And this was clearly a choice, since the restraint could have been zipped up all the way.)

Your description sounds more like this (http://www.asc-csa.gc.ca/eng/astronauts/living_sleeping.asp), which shows Robert Thirsk in a tight all around sleeping bag with just the face exposed. Note that the only thing used to provide "springiness" is the padding of the sleeping bag itself. The zipper provides no more or less springiness than magnets would.

IsaacKuo
2012-Oct-14, 08:35 AM
You don't think space will be at a premium?
I am assuming a future cradle-to-grave habitat, as suggested by the original post. I believe future habitats will be concerned with comfort and usability rather than cramming everything into the minimum space possible.

How long will the poles be between anchor points of some kind and of what material, and how thick and how will you keep it from wobbling and bucking people off of it or whacking a guy in the nads?
The poles would be a few centimeters in diameter--easy to grab, and perhaps up to 100m between anchor points. The material depends on what's available and convenient. Personally, I like the idea of getting raw materials by atmospheric scooping of Venus. This provides plenty of carbon and oxygen, but not much else (which would have to come from somewhere else). The cheapest pole materials would be some sort of carbon fiber.

I don't recall you explaining your method of pole-riding in a previous post, how do you expect me to know what you meant.
YOU are the one proposing that my poles should be a few inches from the wall rather than 2m from the wall. If you have no idea how your proposal is supposed to work, then you didn't put enough thought into it.

Linear time is linear. After watching some videos (http://youtu.be/VDu9z4SCTmc) of the astronauts in 0g, it looks like they can move using their arms to pull along without using their legs to grab anything. If someone feels it's necessary, they could use their toes to squeeze the rail. But that wouldn't be necessary in my design, since I'd use smaller tubes so they could also spread their legs to brake against the wall of the tube.
YOU were the one proposing that my poles should be a few inches from the wall rather than 2m from the wall. That means a much larger diameter so that multiple lanes of two way traffic is possible.

Have you never been in a queue or a throng of people moving through a corridor such as at a sporting event, concert, Best Buy on Black Friday or student aid line in college? Sometimes you can't turnaround and go the other way until you get out of the hallway.
Those times are EXTREMELY rare. Yes, there are some times when people are so crowded that you're literally stuck moving with the crowd (a hazardous situation which is a fire code violation, among other things). But the vast majority of the time, there's always the option to step out of line or to the side.

If you've ever been on a moving sidewalk, such as at some airports, you'll also notice that there are short walls with moving handrails that prevent you from turning around and going the other way until you exit them. Same is true for escalators.
Actually, the vast majority of these purposefully have space for two lanes. You have the option to move in either direction relative to the others on the same moving sidewalk or escalator. Some small escalators are single lane, but these are pretty uncommon since the usual reason for an escalator in the first place is to support a high density of foot traffic.

What are you talking about? Where'd this come from? And what is your point? Active will be used where it makes the most sense to use it.
My point is that these habitats don't need active transport systems. The distances involved don't justify it, considering the relatively low effort required to move even large heavy items.

And I agree, a round door would be problematic for many reasons, such as replacing the door, so I'm thinking they would use a square or rounded-square design, unless it's meant to be gas tight.
With a 4 foot diameter, a square or rounded-square design would be even more difficult to fit things through.

Flat pack has to do with how it's packaged, not how it's put together or articulates (if it articulates).
Like I said, many (if not most) people will want something classier and more sturdy--especially if cabinets are expected to incorporate comfortable padded doors. Folding flat also severely restricts handle design, and foothold/handhold design.

Like with refrigerators, most cabinets are designed for human ergonomics and are less than 4'x4' in two perpendicular dimensions. Get a tape measurer and check your major appliances, cabinetry, and furniture. Most of it will move through a 4'x4' opening, or can be disassembled into two pieces.
A 4 foot by 4 foot square has a diameter of 5.7 feet. You're the one who specified a 4 foot diameter. A square opening with a 4 foot diameter would be only 2.8 feet by 2.8 feet.

Are you confusing cabinetry for furniture or luggage?
No. I am assuming that people will want to move their furniture around sometimes, for various reasons. Most people like to move things around every once in a while, for various reasons. For example, most people change things around when they have a baby or when their kids grow up to need separate rooms or when someone moves out or moves in. Also, people can just feel like changing things around, especially when buying a new piece of furniture or a new TV or something.

but for main passageways, I still think two one-way 4x4 or even 4'x8' corridors is all that's needed
It may be acceptable as a bare minimum for a spartan society, but it's not the way real life hotels, office buildings, apartment buildings, and cruise ships are designed. These are designed with some level of comfort in mind.

What you suggest would be the equivalent of living and working in buildings with 4 foot wide main hallways. It may be theoretically sufficient (ignoring fire codes), but it's crushingly dispiriting. It would be particularly dispiriting when dealing dense foot traffic. Getting into or out of any sort of significant gathering would be a nightmare. What works for a population of six non-handicapped non-elderly astronauts does not necessarily scale up to a cradle-to-grave permanent habitat of thousands or millions.

cjameshuff
2012-Oct-14, 01:47 PM
After thinking about this, I think a vertical "bamboo forest" of poles or taut cords would be best. First off, it resembles an intuitive natural environment--a bamboo forest. In use, people would keep themselves either "right-side-up" or "upside-down", depending on which "floor" they are using as "down". That way, the poles are always vertical from the user's perspective--perfect for stereo vision.

Unless they're not in that artificially chosen orientation for whatever reason, in which case they're a terrible target for stereo vision. And even when "properly" oriented, they are prone to a perceptual illusion where the eyes lock onto two similar, nearby objects as if they were a single object at a different distance. And they provide no bracing for holding position around the axis of the pole.



That's what I'm afraid of!

You're afraid of a solution that allows people to quickly and easily grab ahold and break free? Why?



Specific question is specific.

The answer given is as specific as it can get. What you're positioning depends on what you're using the room for. You may as well be asking "what would they use furniture for?".

Ara Pacis
2012-Oct-14, 06:33 PM
Unless they're not in that artificially chosen orientation for whatever reason, in which case they're a terrible target for stereo vision. And even when "properly" oriented, they are prone to a perceptual illusion where the eyes lock onto two similar, nearby objects as if they were a single object at a different distance. And they provide no bracing for holding position around the axis of the pole.paint them different colors.


You're afraid of a solution that allows people to quickly and easily grab ahold and break free? Why?You wrote about body parts being removed. That's the problem, I prefer they stay attached.


The answer given is as specific as it can get. What you're positioning depends on what you're using the room for. You may as well be asking "what would they use furniture for?".Vague, please unvagueify.

Ara Pacis
2012-Oct-14, 06:59 PM
Simple. You wait a few seconds, because you're already headed for another wall. This room is TINY.Stuck person is stuck. That only works if you have enough velocity, in which case you are not stuck.


Wrong. These accelerations are so small that they are utterly insignificant. I already noted that the significant accelerations are due to body motion. These will produce perceptible motions that send you toward the opposite wall within seconds, so the imperceptible accelerations that are utterly swamped by body motion produced accelerations are utterly insignificant.They can't be wrong, my argument includes them by fiat power of the Affirmative. You can't negate them. If you present an argument by including them, then it's no longer my argument but one you've constructed with the ability to shoot down, that's called a strawman fallacy.


Do you think that a person who sleeps has no body motions? That's false. A person who sleeps breathes. This motion produces significant motions which will imply a significant reaction against whatever wall the person touched last.Got data? Direction and acceleration and final speed of a sleeping person launching themselves from a position parallel to a wall where it seems that we're putting beds.


The only "problem" with an unconstrained sleeping person in this tiny room is that they won't get any true sleep. They'll just wake up within moments or seconds of losing consciousness due to bumping into a wall randomly.This makes no sense, if they are unconscious, then they can't wake up by definition, it's one or the other but not both at the same time (someone can be unconscious for several minutes or longer). And how much velocity are you assuming it takes to knock someone unconscious? A page I linked to earlier described on person who liked to sleep while free-floating. Please explain how the astronaut must be lying.


Using your definition of "stuck", this is clearly wrong. Mathematically, there can be no such space. It's like asking for the smallest circle with a radius bigger than 1 meter. It doesn't exist. The closest you can mathematically provide is the limit, or least upper bound. But at the boundary case, you can't get stuck.

Oh well. I feel this argument has been going nowhere for quite some time. Whatever your point is, the bottom line is that I will never consider getting "stuck" to be a problem in a tiny 8 foot room. The real life experience is that this is a much smaller empty space than Skylab, and the Skylab astronauts did fine.I'm not even sure what that means when applies to geometry.

I haven't read Arthur C. Clarke's Sands of Mars but TV Tropes recounts a scene where an astronaut gets stuck in the middle of a room (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/ImprovisedMicrogravityManeuvering). It was also discussed in this thread (http://cosmoquest.org/forum/showthread.php/83365-Two-microgravity-questions) a few years ago.

Ara Pacis
2012-Oct-14, 07:06 PM
So what? The mattress and cover can be as springy or as stiff as the user wants. Just like here on Earth, this can be provided by padding. The amount of padding and the springiness of the padding is a matter of user preference, just like on Earth. I think most people will prefer soft thick pillow-like padding in both the mattress and the cover (something like a thick comforter). This means the user is sandwiched between pillows. But others will prefer less padding or no padding in either the mattress or cover.

Huh? Like I said, it can be as tight or loose as you want.

I have no idea what link you were thinking of, but the link you did provide showed Sally Ride sleeping in a loose restraint which was only partially zipped up. The way she had it was open and loose, letting ventilation blow in. (And this was clearly a choice, since the restraint could have been zipped up all the way.)

Your description sounds more like this (http://www.asc-csa.gc.ca/eng/astronauts/living_sleeping.asp), which shows Robert Thirsk in a tight all around sleeping bag with just the face exposed. Note that the only thing used to provide "springiness" is the padding of the sleeping bag itself. The zipper provides no more or less springiness than magnets would.

You've completely misunderstood everything I've written here. It's not the springiness of the comforter or whatever, it's the draping of the covers, which has nothing to do with springiness and everything to do with gravity. That is why covers keep someone warm on earth, because it's next to the body creating an area of unmoving or slow moving air that insulates or re-radiates heat back. If you hold a blanket away from a person it will be less effective. In 0g there won't be any gravity to hold a cover close to the skin, so you'll need some other mechanism, hence the springs because magnets would be inflexible.

Ara Pacis
2012-Oct-14, 07:39 PM
I am assuming a future cradle-to-grave habitat, as suggested by the original post. I believe future habitats will be concerned with comfort and usability rather than cramming everything into the minimum space possible.I think lots of 20ft wide tubes would take up too much room. Perhaps you need to describe the full design of the habitat to put this into perspective.


The poles would be a few centimeters in diameter--easy to grab, and perhaps up to 100m between anchor points. The material depends on what's available and convenient. Personally, I like the idea of getting raw materials by atmospheric scooping of Venus. This provides plenty of carbon and oxygen, but not much else (which would have to come from somewhere else). The cheapest pole materials would be some sort of carbon fiber.And how flexible will they be. I'm not an engineer, but perhaps you should talk to one because a lot of materials are rather flexible when they have unsupported segments that are long and thin. You conveniently didn't respond to that point in my last post. Please do so now.


YOU are the one proposing that my poles should be a few inches from the wall rather than 2m from the wall. If you have no idea how your proposal is supposed to work, then you didn't put enough thought into it.

YOU were the one proposing that my poles should be a few inches from the wall rather than 2m from the wall. That means a much larger diameter so that multiple lanes of two way traffic is possible.YOU are asking me to defend why I didn't know what YOU meant because YOU didn't explain it. Priceless. You'll never admit when you're wrong, will you, even if it's a demonstrable lack of description? It's like you're responding to what I wrote without even bothering to read what it is you wrote that I was responding to.


Those times are EXTREMELY rare. Yes, there are some times when people are so crowded that you're literally stuck moving with the crowd (a hazardous situation which is a fire code violation, among other things). But the vast majority of the time, there's always the option to step out of line or to the side.How extremely rare? Perhaps it's rare in the life of a person, but it can be extremely common in certain locations where multiple people have those rare experiences. A person may not spend much of their life in a queue at the DMV, for example, but that doesn't mean the DMV doesn't usually have a queue.


Actually, the vast majority of these purposefully have space for two lanes. You have the option to move in either direction relative to the others on the same moving sidewalk or escalator. Some small escalators are single lane, but these are pretty uncommon since the usual reason for an escalator in the first place is to support a high density of foot traffic.I'm not aware of any moving walkways or escalators that are designed to be multi-laned. Some people will push past someone but that doesn't mean that it was designed with that in mind or that it's safe. When people are on a moving walkway or an escalator they tend to have bags or luggage of some sort that take up room to the side of them preventing others from passing.


My point is that these habitats don't need active transport systems. The distances involved don't justify it, considering the relatively low effort required to move even large heavy items.Describe your habitat to put it into perspective then.


With a 4 foot diameter, a square or rounded-square design would be even more difficult to fit things through.No, a 4'x4' square would have a larger opening than a 4'Dia circle. This is basic geometry.


Like I said, many (if not most) people will want something classier and more sturdy--especially if cabinets are expected to incorporate comfortable padded doors. Folding flat also severely restricts handle design, and foothold/handhold design. Handles can be removed. Have you never assembled flat pack furniture?


A 4 foot by 4 foot square has a diameter of 5.7 feet. You're the one who specified a 4 foot diameter. A square opening with a 4 foot diameter would be only 2.8 feet by 2.8 feet.I never described a square opening as having any diameter, so I'm not sure why you bring it up except to be intentionally confusing. I specified a 4'dia tubeway for travel, someone else mentioned a 4'Dia door, which you responded to and to which response I responded. Are you getting us posters confused?


No. I am assuming that people will want to move their furniture around sometimes, for various reasons. Most people like to move things around every once in a while, for various reasons. For example, most people change things around when they have a baby or when their kids grow up to need separate rooms or when someone moves out or moves in. Also, people can just feel like changing things around, especially when buying a new piece of furniture or a new TV or something.Do you mean redecorating? I haven't said anything about interior doors. I've only been referring to exterior doors.


It may be acceptable as a bare minimum for a spartan society, but it's not the way real life hotels, office buildings, apartment buildings, and cruise ships are designed. These are designed with some level of comfort in mind.And I think that what is considered comfortable in space will be different than what is considered "comfortable" on earth. Also, I wouldn't consider open spaces on Earth to be that comfortable, and I suspect they would be even less comfortable in 0g.


What you suggest would be the equivalent of living and working in buildings with 4 foot wide main hallways. It may be theoretically sufficient (ignoring fire codes), but it's crushingly dispiriting. It would be particularly dispiriting when dealing dense foot traffic. Getting into or out of any sort of significant gathering would be a nightmare. What works for a population of six non-handicapped non-elderly astronauts does not necessarily scale up to a cradle-to-grave permanent habitat of thousands or millions.False, a building on earth often has hallways that are larger because they have people moving both directions in a front facing orientation, but I'm only using a 4' tubeway for one-way travel where people move in a top-facing orientation. More strawmen.

cjameshuff
2012-Oct-14, 08:46 PM
paint them different colors.

A partial solution, but you still have poor depth judgement in one direction, plus a significant percentage of the population has deficiencies in color vision, plus people might not want brightly colored poles going through their living area.



You wrote about body parts being removed. That's the problem, I prefer they stay attached.

Do you commonly apply superglue to your feet so they don't come loose from the floor? Or are you going to persist in "misunderstanding" me to say that people's body parts would fall off, something that has not proven to be an issue in the many applications where nets are used in normal Earth gravity?



Vague, please unvagueify.

Vague? It is a simple suggestion for positioning furnishings in a low-gravity environment. I gave a short list of concrete examples, but there is no reason to limit the application...anything that doesn't require some sort of fixed, inflexible installation.

Jens
2012-Oct-15, 04:34 AM
I can picture climbing vines, mosses, maybe even grasses and possibly strangely shaped shrubs... but what about trees? How does the tree make sense of its environment in a 0 g habitat?

Just thinking a bit more about this, what would happen when leaves fall off trees, or when seeds fall? For one thing, I don't think a tree would reproduce very well, because the seeds wouldn't fall into the ground unless they were forced under. And actually, going a bit further, how do you get the soil to stay on the "ground"? Maybe you just have very tightly packed soil?

Noclevername
2012-Oct-15, 04:40 AM
Just thinking a bit more about this, what would happen when leaves fall off trees, or when seeds fall? For one thing, I don't think a tree would reproduce very well, because the seeds wouldn't fall into the ground unless they were forced under. And actually, going a bit further, how do you get the soil to stay on the "ground"? Maybe you just have very tightly packed soil?

You could put a layer of light mesh to hold the soil in place. And since the entire environment is artificial, what's wrong with artificially planting seeds?

Really, it's not much harder than growing vegetation for life support, just scaled up.

ZunarJ5
2012-Oct-16, 07:09 PM
This is an interesting article relating to how gravity affects plant development.

http://today.uconn.edu/blog/2009/08/the-effects-of-gravity-on-plant-growth-and-development/

Githyanki
2012-Oct-16, 11:03 PM
Well, I envision a 0Gee station to be that, 0Gee; something like a large sphere the size of an asteroid. No rotating torus etc. On this station, the equatorial regions are full of solar-power collectors. The polar regions have your communications and transportation systems between stations. Now, radiation is a big danger in space for life, so the walls are super-thick to prevent even solar-flares from getting in (it might even generate it's own magnetic-sphere).

Now inside, is a series of tunnels, small-rooms and have a myriad of functions from food production to habitats to recreation. I assume in the future, solar power will be more efficient and you don't have to bother with glass-bubbles on the surface to produce photosynthesis. Also, this isn't a true zero-g environment; having such large anti-radiation shields would produce a mirco-gravity environment; if one was stuck in the middle of a room; it will eventually come in contact with a wall and be able to move. True zero-gee would be too risky due to radiation.

Now, the idea of these 8' tall humans running around is false. I assume through genetic altering they can tailor-make humans for zero-gee as humans as we are now, couldn't thrive in a 0-Gee environment for long-periods of time. I imagine the humans similar to the 'grey-aliens', but more bizarre. These things are small; a smaller human requires less resources. They have larger brains in proportions to their bodies. Their heads are as large as ours, but their bodies my be two or three feet tall if they could stand. Their eyes would be larger to live in less-light (needing less light means more energy for something else, like food production). Their skin is albino as they will never see sunlight. Now, they have no use of legs, so, they have a second pair of arms were their legs were. Now, in these small tunnels, they can use momentum by pushing against the tunnel-walls and move about very rapidly. They have better problem-solving abilities and can act with great speed in the event of an accident such as a pressure-breach or a radiation-leak. Also, their vegetarians has the production of meat uses more resources than to produce veggies. They are completely incapable of living in any gravity world. If they were on Mars, the gravity would crush and suffocate them. Even the Moon may be too much for them. Micro-gravity, such as on a comet or a large asteroid probably won't hurt them.

Noclevername
2012-Oct-16, 11:53 PM
Also, this isn't a true zero-g environment; having such large anti-radiation shields would produce a mirco-gravity environment; if one was stuck in the middle of a room; it will eventually come in contact with a wall and be able to move.

If the hab is spherical, an outer shell of any thickness will not alter the internal gravity. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shell_theorem

cjameshuff
2012-Oct-17, 12:35 AM
You've adapted them so specifically for freefall cocoons that they're terribly adapted for space in general. If they can't even withstand lunar gravity, they're too delicate to move quickly anywhere, an accidental impact could easily be fatal. Vehicles for travel within or between habitats would have to accelerate slowly to avoid harming their occupants, and they would be effectively denied access to facilities in orbit around planets, as their spacecraft would require inefficient and long spiral trajectories in and out, compared to the efficient direct transfers or faster high-energy transfers.

If you're going to undergo drastic adaptations for space, I see something more along the lines of a compact chimpanzee-like frame, with dextrous gripping feet and more flexible legs and spine that are less optimized for walking. Issues of bone loss and muscle wasting would be engineered away, but strength and durability of the muscles and skeleton would be increased if possible. The skull and neck would particularly be reinforced...version 1.0 is too prone to damage when bouncing around a freefall environment. Unmodified humans might want to wear padding and foam helmets when they come up to visit.

Freefall/microgravity might be the preferred environment, but they would get around (if awkwardly) in a full Earth gravity. The specific parts of the human body most likely to fail under high accelerations would be reinforced or re-engineered, allowing them to use short, efficient burns, hard aerobraking, and high-acceleration mass drivers and rotary sling launchers.

Herbivores have long, inefficient digestive tracts that produce copious amounts of waste and require steady food input. If any changes are to be made, they would be to closer emulate a carnivore's digestive system. Meat animals can be raised in specialized facilities that can handle the waste levels, meat can be cultured in vitro (as can microbial foods), and food processing techniques can make vegetable products more digestible...an extension of the adaptations we've already made in cooking, fermentation, aging, etc.

Noclevername
2012-Oct-18, 08:24 AM
At some point is just becomes simpler to spin the habitat rather than re-engineer the inhabitants. All that will require is a little more building material* and some one-time engineering, most of which has already been done by O'Neill, Bernal et al.

*Since you'll need massive radiation shielding for anything outside the magnetosphere, it won't even require that much more.

ZunarJ5
2012-Oct-20, 03:03 AM
Well, I envision a 0Gee station to be that, 0Gee; something like a large sphere the size of an asteroid. No rotating torus etc. On this station, the equatorial regions are full of solar-power collectors. The polar regions have your communications and transportation systems between stations. Now, radiation is a big danger in space for life, so the walls are super-thick to prevent even solar-flares from getting in (it might even generate it's own magnetic-sphere).

Now inside, is a series of tunnels, small-rooms and have a myriad of functions from food production to habitats to recreation. I assume in the future, solar power will be more efficient and you don't have to bother with glass-bubbles on the surface to produce photosynthesis. Also, this isn't a true zero-g environment; having such large anti-radiation shields would produce a mirco-gravity environment; if one was stuck in the middle of a room; it will eventually come in contact with a wall and be able to move. True zero-gee would be too risky due to radiation.

Now, the idea of these 8' tall humans running around is false. I assume through genetic altering they can tailor-make humans for zero-gee as humans as we are now, couldn't thrive in a 0-Gee environment for long-periods of time. I imagine the humans similar to the 'grey-aliens', but more bizarre. These things are small; a smaller human requires less resources. They have larger brains in proportions to their bodies. Their heads are as large as ours, but their bodies my be two or three feet tall if they could stand. Their eyes would be larger to live in less-light (needing less light means more energy for something else, like food production). Their skin is albino as they will never see sunlight. Now, they have no use of legs, so, they have a second pair of arms were their legs were. Now, in these small tunnels, they can use momentum by pushing against the tunnel-walls and move about very rapidly. They have better problem-solving abilities and can act with great speed in the event of an accident such as a pressure-breach or a radiation-leak. Also, their vegetarians has the production of meat uses more resources than to produce veggies. They are completely incapable of living in any gravity world. If they were on Mars, the gravity would crush and suffocate them. Even the Moon may be too much for them. Micro-gravity, such as on a comet or a large asteroid probably won't hurt them.

This is very cool. Your envisioned station and inhabitants are fascinating. I love the idea of the legs evolving into arms... I can picture students learning to identify the vestigial characteristics.

ZunarJ5
2012-Oct-20, 03:12 AM
At some point is just becomes simpler to spin the habitat rather than re-engineer the inhabitants. All that will require is a little more building material* and some one-time engineering, most of which has already been done by O'Neill, Bernal et al.

*Since you'll need massive radiation shielding for anything outside the magnetosphere, it won't even require that much more.

Sure, but this avoids the parameters set in the OP completely. The point is, they didn't create artificial gravity.

Not mentioned in the OP (because it was superlative), is that the beings I am imagining actually expend energy to maintain 0g (when accelerating or experiencing gravitational forces by other means). :)

eburacum45
2012-Oct-20, 07:31 PM
I can't imagine how they could compensate for acceleration (unless they are supported by some sort of ubiquitous high-tech mechanical system such as utility fog (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utility_fog)). What did you have in mind?

cjameshuff
2012-Oct-20, 08:51 PM
My thoughts exactly. There's no way known or theorized to maintain a freefall environment while accelerating, energy input or not. Even if there was, beings that required such additional energy input to maintain a safely low-gravity environment would still be much more poorly adapted to living in space in general. Their ships and even things like fast intra-habitat transports need additional equipment and power generation to keep them alive.

This fragility isn't even an adaptation to freefall. Weight may be absent, but mass and inertia aren't. Muscular and skeletal strength will be required to move themselves and to avoid being crushed by moving objects or impacts with walls or other inhabitants. People bouncing around a large freefall habitat are likely to be much more prone to bruising collisions. They're not adapted to space, they're adapted to crawling around in safe cocoons.

Albinism and severe low-light adaptation aren't particularly good ideas either. UV light is useful for controlling microbe growth, agricultural areas will need bright lights. We don't need much light as it is, and some minor tweaks could improve our low-light vision without overspecializing us for it.

Anyway, these ideas are also focused purely on function. There's many examples here on Earth of traits like flashy plumage that are actually quite counterproductive to survival, but provide a reproductive advantage. Things are unlikely to be different in space, whether the variations are natural or artificial. Hairlessness might be common, but so might stiffer, less tangle-prone hair that can be manipulated into elaborate displays in freefall. Performance in zero-gravity athletics is another likely factor.

Also, if the leaders are smart, they'll encourage diversity for the sake of adaptability in unanticipated situations. A uniform, hyper-specialized monoculture does not have good prospects for long-term survival. Use of archived genetic material could allow them to avoid homogenization without constant genetic tweaking, and would have a bonus of giving them a larger gene pool than their population would otherwise have.

Githyanki
2012-Oct-21, 01:54 AM
This is very cool. Your envisioned station and inhabitants are fascinating. I love the idea of the legs evolving into arms... I can picture students learning to identify the vestigial characteristics.

Thanks. I only wish I has better at drawing!

ZunarJ5
2012-Oct-21, 01:01 PM
I can't imagine how they could compensate for acceleration (unless they are supported by some sort of ubiquitous high-tech mechanical system such as utility fog (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utility_fog)). What did you have in mind?

Well, the gravitational/inertial compensation could be a result or side affect of their ship drive. It is proportional, so that the more energy that is put into their drive the stronger the gravitational negation becomes. I am not looking for scientific justification for this... it is purely fictional. I am not going to try and throw some techno babble at it either... it just works. :)

Noclevername
2012-Oct-21, 02:41 PM
Well, the gravitational/inertial compensation could be a result or side affect of their ship drive. It is proportional, so that the more energy that is put into their drive the stronger the gravitational negation becomes. I am not looking for scientific justification for this... it is purely fictional. I am not going to try and throw some techno babble at it either... it just works. :)

If it dampens inertia, does it alter the movements of objects inside the habitat?

ZunarJ5
2012-Oct-21, 11:34 PM
If it dampens inertia, does it alter the movements of objects inside the habitat?

The way I described it in my previous post is probably misleading. Honestly, the exact workings of this sci-fi tech aren't important to the story. What is important is the end result, which is a vast self sufficient 0g habitat that travels through space at relativistic speeds. I have no desire to be lead into a discussion on the physics of how something like this could be accomplished... I am not equipped for such a discussion.

To answer your question though, you can imagine that everything on the station behaves as if it were a stationary space station even when moving.

Noclevername
2012-Oct-22, 07:32 AM
To answer your question though, you can imagine that everything on the station behaves as if it were a stationary space station even when moving.

So it makes a bubble of "still" space? OK, got it.

ravens_cry
2012-Oct-22, 12:14 PM
Everywhere humans have called a place home, humans have found ways to make them beautiful, to add to them, to make them special.
Origami and other paper craft with bits of foil, plastic and other detritus I see been some of the initial steps toward something like architecture beyond the utilitarian needs.
Imagine a flight of origami cranes strung along the inner walls of a space station, mesh of woven discarded wires and tubes set up for a little bit of extra privacy, a garden of foil flowers planted in the lunar regolith,
The little beauties, the small joys, the sparks of creativity.

Noclevername
2012-Oct-22, 09:09 PM
If the residents can gnentically engineer themselves, it makes sense that they can engineer life for decorative purposes and/or make practical lifeforms (food plants, etc.) more aesthetically pleasing and ubiquitous.

Jens
2012-Oct-23, 05:15 AM
These things are small; a smaller human requires less resources. They have larger brains in proportions to their bodies. Their heads are as large as ours, but their bodies my be two or three feet tall if they could stand.

I assume you're going to have a lot of doctors doing Cesareans, then, either that or you're going to design them with very wide pelvises.

ravens_cry
2012-Oct-23, 01:25 PM
I assume you're going to have a lot of doctors doing Cesareans, then, either that or you're going to design them with very wide pelvises.
From what I understand female human pelvises are almost as wide as they can get while still maintaining a bipedal stance. Even so, human females have a slightly slower top potential speed compared to human males.

ZunarJ5
2012-Oct-24, 10:56 PM
So it makes a bubble of "still" space? OK, got it. Still space... I like it. Yeah, let's go with that. :neutral:

Noclevername
2012-Oct-24, 11:06 PM
Still space... I like it. Yeah, let's go with that.

I can't claim credit for the term, I think it was used in connection with the Alcubierre warp drive concept-- but you said you didn't want to get science involved, so... :)

ZunarJ5
2012-Oct-24, 11:08 PM
If the residents can gnentically engineer themselves, it makes sense that they can engineer life for decorative purposes and/or make practical lifeforms (food plants, etc.) more aesthetically pleasing and ubiquitous.

I was actually imagining much of their biosphere being comprised of genetically engineered organisms. Not a sterile environment at all, but one possessing it's own uniquely adapted ecosystem. This could possibly be it's own thread... though it is closely related.

ZunarJ5
2012-Oct-24, 11:12 PM
I can't claim credit for the term, I think it was used in connection with the Alcubierre warp drive concept-- but you said you didn't want to get science involved, so... :)

I was actually going to link that from wikipedia, but I didn't even want to get that specific;)-default

Noclevername
2012-Oct-26, 01:21 AM
I was actually imagining much of their biosphere being comprised of genetically engineered organisms. Not a sterile environment at all, but one possessing it's own uniquely adapted ecosystem. This could possibly be it's own thread... though it is closely related.

You could have the architecture itself grown to order-- something like a Dyson tree (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dyson_tree).

eburacum45
2012-Oct-26, 04:49 AM
You could have the architecture itself grown to order-- something like a Dyson tree (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dyson_tree).
The Dyson Tree concept ties in quite nicely with Isaac Kuo's 'forest of bamboo poles'; several of the aspects of microgravity architecture seem to be well suited to biotech methods of construction.

ZunarJ5
2012-Oct-26, 12:32 PM
You could have the architecture itself grown to order-- something like a Dyson tree (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dyson_tree).

Oh, cool! I hadn't seen that one before. Not exactly what I had in mine, but very cool regardless.

ZunarJ5
2012-Oct-26, 12:33 PM
The Dyson Tree concept ties in quite nicely with Isaac Kuo's 'forest of bamboo poles'; several of the aspects of microgravity architecture seem to be well suited to biotech methods of construction.

It's strange... I still can't access the links to Orion's Arm. I will have to try from my home computer sometime this weekend.

eburacum45
2012-Oct-27, 04:42 AM
Try this one
Dyson Trees (http://www.orionsarm.com/xcms.php?r=oaeg-view-article&egart_uid=48472ab83cce0)

ZunarJ5
2012-Oct-27, 01:57 PM
Try this one
Dyson Trees (http://www.orionsarm.com/xcms.php?r=oaeg-view-article&egart_uid=48472ab83cce0)

I can access the site from home. That link, and the others, all work. Odd, I havn't encountered that problem on any other website from work... we have fairly loose rules on internet use.

BTW, very cool site. I think I may lose a few dozen hours there :D

Githyanki
2012-Oct-31, 07:37 PM
*I assumed there'd be structural differences that would cause a bit of deference in gravity...

I don't think they'd need caesarians as they probably reproduce in a tube...

Also, humans as we are now decorate our homes. It could be possible a future human could not care about that.

Noclevername
2012-Oct-31, 07:48 PM
Well, now you're talking about much bigger differences than just 0g architecture.

ravens_cry
2012-Oct-31, 08:52 PM
Also, humans as we are now decorate our homes. It could be possible a future human could not care about that.
Then they aren't humans. Even the most technologically primitive humans have done so.

cjameshuff
2012-Oct-31, 08:57 PM
*I assumed there'd be structural differences that would cause a bit of deference in gravity...

Vesta masses 285 quadrillion tons and is largely solid rock and nickel-iron, but its surface gravity is only 0.25 m/s^2. If you drop an object near its surface, after one second it's fallen less than a handspan...in terms of moving around, it's practically freefall. It's unlikely for actual gravity of a habitat to be noticeable to its occupants unless they're really looking for it.



I don't think they'd need caesarians as they probably reproduce in a tube...

This being the only way they reproduce would have rather negative implications for their survival if unforeseen events deprive them of the ability to construct and operate such equipment.



Also, humans as we are now decorate our homes. It could be possible a future human could not care about that.

Well, the subject of the thread is architecture in a new and different environment. Architecture that's strictly functional and utilitarian is going to be...a bit boring.

Your reasoning can be carried even further. Why physically move around? It risks injury, and is energy inefficient. Why not stay in the tube and use telepresence drones? You can switch between drones on opposite sides of the habitat or even in nearby habitats in an instant. Drones aren't bothered by high gravity, can make much more efficient use of energy, and can just go into sleep mode where they are or be taken by someone else when not needed. So might the people, in fact, hibernating for long periods to conserve energy. This approach frees you from a lot of the limitations of requiring people's bodies to independently support themselves.

This lets you simplify the digestive system even further, perhaps even removing it completely, along with most of the skeleton and musculature. This has the side effect of making it easy to replace the portions of the body most susceptible to high gravity with more robust mechanical systems, allowing them to visit high gravity areas in person if needed. Keeping the population's actual thinking meatware in racks of tubes make for simplified life support as well, the "living areas" only need atmosphere for thermal control and drone propulsion. And it practically eliminates the risk of disease, which could otherwise be a major danger in an enclosed habitat, as pathogens can't pass from one individual to the next.

Noclevername
2012-Nov-01, 01:46 AM
A thread on post-human architecture would have to be based purely on imagination, as there's just too much guesswork involved to say what anyone with their thought process altered that much would find aesthetically pleasing.

Van Rijn
2012-Nov-01, 05:29 AM
I assume you're going to have a lot of doctors doing Cesareans, then, either that or you're going to design them with very wide pelvises.

Or, if they're into genetic engineering, design in a biological zipper (that is, something that can open with minimal pain, and reseal properly for later pregnancies).

Something like that would make more sense in nature, but evolution is unlikely to lead to it.

Noclevername
2012-Nov-01, 05:45 AM
Maybe they could have pelvic bones that are jointed to open, the way snakes can dislocate their jaws to swallow things bigger than their heads.

IsaacKuo
2012-Nov-01, 05:57 AM
Or, if they're into genetic engineering, design in a biological zipper (that is, something that can open with minimal pain, and reseal properly for later pregnancies).

Something like that would make more sense in nature, but evolution is unlikely to lead to it.
Marsupial pouches are a naturally evolved solution for the problems described, but without a need for a "zipper".

Van Rijn
2012-Nov-01, 06:51 AM
Marsupial pouches are a naturally evolved solution for the problems described, but without a need for a "zipper".

Maybe. I'd dismissed that because I'd read somewhere that marsupials were small brained due to the limits imposed by their very small size at birth. Living marsupials tend to be a bit dim, at least compared to some of the brighter species we tend to notice. It's also been claimed that they're relatively rare because they tend to get outcompeted by smarter animals. However, googling on it, I found this:

http://www.pnas.org/content/107/37/16216.full

which suggests it's quite a bit more complicated than that, that the "small brained" marsupial is something of a myth (while there are some pretty dumb marsupials, apparently brain size relative body weight isn't unreasonable). And they apparently have very significant postnatal brain development.

But it still isn't clear to me that it is definitely a solution - I'd be more convinced if there were some really bright marsupials around.

eburacum45
2012-Nov-01, 09:15 AM
In microgravity an external pouch/womb could be as big as necessary without causing too much of a restriction on mobility. It could incorporate a 'zipper' as well, if that works.
I generally assume that a fully mature technology of genetic engineering would be capable of producing almost any reasonable configuration of bodyplan, but that might not be the case. Looking at the almost unbounded variation on living species, all produced from variations on a single code, it seems that mature genetic engineering technology could be capable of producing some remarkable results.

Ara Pacis
2012-Dec-24, 09:30 AM
Do you commonly apply superglue to your feet so they don't come loose from the floor? Or are you going to persist in "misunderstanding" me to say that people's body parts would fall off, something that has not proven to be an issue in the many applications where nets are used in normal Earth gravity?

On the contrary, finger avulsion (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2759628/) injuries are real. Nets have been known to cause them. Also known as Goalie Finger (http://medical-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Goalie+Finger).
Toes lost in shrimp net. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Deltavs.svg)
"While playing for Servette FC, a Geneva-based Swiss soccer club, Diogo assisted on a goal late in the game. In celebration, he climbed the fence that separated the pitch from the fans in attendance. However, without his knowing, his wedding ring got caught on the fence, and when Diogo jumped off the fence, most of his finger was ripped off his hand. (http://www.toptenz.net/top-10-dumbest-sports-injuries.php)" (explicit images)
"A 17-year-old boy jumped over a fence and sustained an avulsion injury to the fifth finger of his right hand when the ring he was wearing caught on the fence. The finger was amputated through the distal interphalangeal joint, and the tendon of the flexor digitorum profundus muscle was completely pulled out (http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMicm030406)" (explicit images)

Although more common may be a mere dislocation or tearing of the ligaments or tendons of the digits or limb.
"A dislocation usually occurs when there is an accident such as a ball striking the tip of the finger or a hard fall onto a finger or getting a finger caught on a piece of equipment like a football mask or a basketball net. (http://library.upstate.edu/frc/resources/eil/orre3178.php)"

Need more evidence?

Glom
2012-Dec-24, 09:38 PM
It is prevalent throughout my industry to ban jewellery at industrial sites lest they cause debilitating injury.

SkepticJ
2012-Dec-24, 10:05 PM
What about elastic nets? Don't make them out of thin ropes, but bungee cords.

These have been around for a while for securing cargo in truck beds, etc. Just make them with denser reticulation.

swampyankee
2012-Dec-24, 11:54 PM
Depending on the shape of the habitat, homes might be all sorts of odd shapes. Spheres, domes, cubes, tetrahedrons, cylinders, cones, "honeycomb" hexes, or irregular forms slipped anywhere there's enough open volume. This might make for an interesting real estate market, with customers vying for "prime" shapes...

Probably more cubes than anything else. As an architect friend said "people are basically square."

Ara Pacis
2012-Dec-25, 05:54 AM
What about elastic nets? Don't make them out of thin ropes, but bungee cords.

These have been around for a while for securing cargo in truck beds, etc. Just make them with denser reticulation.
If they fail first, then maybe, but if the body part fails first, it wouldn't reduce the possibility of injury, even though it may reduce the instances. I know it's not too common on earth for people to remove fingers or other body parts with nets, if we look specifically at nets. Other sorts of dislocations and even amputations can and have occurred in structures that have small enough spaces for a finger to get caught. Anyone here ever catch their finger in a drawer handle? If you want something more gruesome, just think back to Saddam Hussein's end. One of the reasons such decapitations, amputations, avulsions, dislocations and strains/sprains with regards to nets and other loop structures are less frequent is that velocities and body balance are fairly well managed in a 1 g environment. However, in 0 g the entire premise of using nets is based on free-falling, ballistic trajectories, like those attained by the soccer goalie or Saddam Hussein. Unlike walking past a cabinet and getting your finger caught and stopping and backing up, getting something caught in passing in a net in 0 g means you have no planet to brace against or gravity to orient, so a person with an appendage suddenly caught in a net in freefall will pivot about and rebound differently.

cjameshuff
2012-Dec-25, 04:36 PM
People quite commonly work with and climb on nets without body parts flying every which way. Instances of injury are rare, and easy to avoid: simply using large diameter cords would make most of those incidents impossible.

Ara Pacis
2012-Dec-25, 06:09 PM
People quite commonly work with and climb on nets without body parts flying every which way. Instances of injury are rare, and easy to avoid: simply using large diameter cords would make most of those incidents impossible.

They have the benefit of gravity. It prevents as many problems as it causes. How large of a diameter are you thinking?

IsaacKuo
2012-Dec-26, 07:14 PM
This thread has gotten really weird. Elastic bungie type cords are used on the ISS a lot. They seem okay with it.

Also, rope jungle gyms are common in playgrounds which are safe for children.

Ara Pacis
2012-Dec-27, 07:19 AM
This thread has gotten really weird. Elastic bungie type cords are used on the ISS a lot. They seem okay with it.What is the manner of their use?


Also, rope jungle gyms are common in playgrounds which are safe for children.What is the manner of their use? How is their use affected by the local gravitational field?

boppa
2012-Dec-31, 11:06 AM
Maybe. I'd dismissed that because I'd read somewhere that marsupials were small brained due to the limits imposed by their very small size at birth. Living marsupials tend to be a bit dim, at least compared to some of the brighter species we tend to notice. It's also been claimed that they're relatively rare because they tend to get outcompeted by smarter animals. However, googling on it, I found this:

http://www.pnas.org/content/107/37/16216.full

which suggests it's quite a bit more complicated than that, that the "small brained" marsupial is something of a myth (while there are some pretty dumb marsupials, apparently brain size relative body weight isn't unreasonable). And they apparently have very significant postnatal brain development.

But it still isn't clear to me that it is definitely a solution - I'd be more convinced if there were some really bright marsupials around.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skippy_the_Bush_Kangaroo


`STT STT STT'

`What's that Skippy, You had to land the chopper after Jerry passed out'

;-)


(Actually many roos are IMHO more intelligent than most dog breeds- cage latches that defeat most dogs pose little deterrent' value to a roo or wobbaly (wallaby))

boppa
2012-Dec-31, 11:13 AM
On the contrary, finger avulsion (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2759628/) injuries are real. Nets have been known to cause them. Also known as Goalie Finger (http://medical-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Goalie+Finger).
Toes lost in shrimp net. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Deltavs.svg)
"While playing for Servette FC, a Geneva-based Swiss soccer club, Diogo assisted on a goal late in the game. In celebration, he climbed the fence that separated the pitch from the fans in attendance. However, without his knowing, his wedding ring got caught on the fence, and when Diogo jumped off the fence, most of his finger was ripped off his hand. (http://www.toptenz.net/top-10-dumbest-sports-injuries.php)" (explicit images)
"A 17-year-old boy jumped over a fence and sustained an avulsion injury to the fifth finger of his right hand when the ring he was wearing caught on the fence. The finger was amputated through the distal interphalangeal joint, and the tendon of the flexor digitorum profundus muscle was completely pulled out (http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMicm030406)" (explicit images)

Although more common may be a mere dislocation or tearing of the ligaments or tendons of the digits or limb.
"A dislocation usually occurs when there is an accident such as a ball striking the tip of the finger or a hard fall onto a finger or getting a finger caught on a piece of equipment like a football mask or a basketball net. (http://library.upstate.edu/frc/resources/eil/orre3178.php)"

Need more evidence?

Unfortunately you are using evidence in a almost 10m/s/s architecture (ie 1G) which has absolutely nothing to do with the OP premise of a 0G living quarters (almost- can I say it, a strawman argument?)

I would be a lot more impressed if you could quote a lot of evidence of injuries caused by netting in a 0G enviroment

(I can show lots of evidence that standing up can be dangerous- however we all do it every day)

boppa
2012-Dec-31, 12:25 PM
On the contrary, finger avulsion (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2759628/) injuries are real. Nets have been known to cause them. Also known as Goalie Finger (http://medical-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Goalie+Finger).
Toes lost in shrimp net. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Deltavs.svg)
"While playing for Servette FC, a Geneva-based Swiss soccer club, Diogo assisted on a goal late in the game. In celebration, he climbed the fence that separated the pitch from the fans in attendance. However, without his knowing, his wedding ring got caught on the fence, and when Diogo jumped off the fence, most of his finger was ripped off his hand. (http://www.toptenz.net/top-10-dumbest-sports-injuries.php)" (explicit images)
"A 17-year-old boy jumped over a fence and sustained an avulsion injury to the fifth finger of his right hand when the ring he was wearing caught on the fence. The finger was amputated through the distal interphalangeal joint, and the tendon of the flexor digitorum profundus muscle was completely pulled out (http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMicm030406)" (explicit images)

Although more common may be a mere dislocation or tearing of the ligaments or tendons of the digits or limb.
"A dislocation usually occurs when there is an accident such as a ball striking the tip of the finger or a hard fall onto a finger or getting a finger caught on a piece of equipment like a football mask or a basketball net. (http://library.upstate.edu/frc/resources/eil/orre3178.php)"

Need more evidence?

Actually...

after reading your links...

the first link (titled Toes lost in shrimp net.) is a wikipedia link (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Deltavs.svg) that appears (to my admittedly untrained eye) to have little to do with toes, shrimps, nets or losing any of the above in any combination...(As far as I know, shrimp nets and toes lost therein are a fairly uncommon occurrence in travel between the earth, the moon and mars or any combination of the above- see the link for details)

the second titled "While playing for Servette FC, a Geneva-based Swiss soccer club, Diogo assisted on a goal late in the game. In celebration, he climbed the fence that separated the pitch from the fans in attendance. However, without his knowing, his wedding ring got caught on the fence, and when Diogo jumped off the fence, most of his finger was ripped off his hand." (explicit images)
links to http://www.toptenz.net/top-10-dumbest-sports-injuries.php...

that has at number ten- DONT SNEEZE!!!!! \
another example (from your own link notice please) is...
`Only in May 2004, the former Cubs slugger sprained a ligament after sneezing and would be forced onto the disabled list. The 35-year-old Sosa sneezed not just once, but twice. You see, itís that second sneeze that makes all the difference'

at number 9 is wearing protective safety equipment is dangerous to your health!!!
`Griffey once missed a game after his protective cup slipped, pinching one of his testicles and forcing him temporarily out of action in more ways than one. '

number eight is Ara Pacis's quote

number seven is all hugging should be banned immediately!!!

after all it leads to shoulder dislocations...
` Once after hitting a game-winning shot, he was bear-hugged by then-teammate Charles Barkley. As it would turn out, though, Barkley was a little TOO pumped-up about the basket and wound up dislocating K.J.ís shoulder.'

number six is a doozy- ban vomiting (in zero g??) AND microwave ovens!!!

`Mitchell also holds another distinct honor, though. Heís the only athlete on this list to be honored for not one, but two boneheaded injuries. Once, he reportedly strained an abdominal muscle while vomiting, which resulted in a trip to the DL. More famously, however, he chipped a tooth after leaving a frozen donut in the microwave too long, making it too hard to bite into. '

That's it for the first 5 `evidences' from Ara Pacis's link..

thanks for the laughs... I must remember to put nets on my don't list...

boppa
2012-Dec-31, 12:57 PM
This thread has gotten really weird. Elastic bungie type cords are used on the ISS a lot. They seem okay with it.

Also, rope jungle gyms are common in playgrounds which are safe for children.


What is the manner of their use?

What is the manner of their use? How is their use affected by the local gravitational field?

Yes some posts can cause that effect- But a deeper look into the `evidence' shows why...

Some posts do seem to have an infuriatingly simplistic over and over pattern

don't they?

a bit like monty python skits, you always know what's coming up

monty python link

swampyankee
2012-Dec-31, 01:29 PM
It is prevalent throughout my industry to ban jewellery at industrial sites lest they cause debilitating injury.

No jewelry and no long sleeves has been proper shop practice for decades. My father, who was a toolmaker and never wore rings, watches, long sleeves, or neckties to work, saw the results of somebody who wore a ring while operating a lathe. The chip got caught under the ring and sliced all the skin under the ring to the bone. This was before microsurgery was reliable; the man lost his finger.

Overall, I think that safety and movement nets are unlikely to be a major source of injuries in a microgravity habitat; certainly no more so than collisions between fast-moving people and between fast-movers and walls.

boppa
2012-Dec-31, 02:26 PM
No jewelry and no long sleeves has been proper shop practice for decades. My father, who was a toolmaker and never wore rings, watches, long sleeves, or neckties to work, saw the results of somebody who wore a ring while operating a lathe. The chip got caught under the ring and sliced all the skin under the ring to the bone. This was before microsurgery was reliable; the man lost his finger.

Overall, I think that safety and movement nets are unlikely to be a major source of injuries in a microgravity habitat; certainly no more so than collisions between fast-moving people and between fast-movers and walls.

Interestingly, I work in an industry that uses bench grinders, lathes, mills etc daily, but since my apprenticeship, its been industry standard to always remove rings, watches etc, but its also mandatory to wear long sleeve shirts ( buttoned or wrist straps), bare arms is a big no no, first time verbal warning, second time written warning, third time off site...

Its been that way since I was an apprentice, that was mid 80's

I have seen the result of an unbuttoned canvas overalls as an apprentice, that was rather eye opening..
The unbuttoned arm got caught up in a 4 jaw lathe (unfortunately an old one used to train apprentices) without the `slapper button' (the big red kill button)- by the time the guy next to him got to the flip switch and turned it off- his arm had multiple fractures as it was wrapped around the bar and the canvas overalls (which are very thick and harm to tear) had been torn off him...leaving him naked

he had to spend most of the first year either in hospital or visiting hospital- I seriously doubt to this day he has any kids....

those overalls are (blank) hard to tear....

I am wary to this day of any chance of getting caught up in any moving machinery...

Ara Pacis
2012-Dec-31, 07:33 PM
Yes some posts can cause that effect- But a deeper look into the `evidence' shows why...

Some posts do seem to have an infuriatingly simplistic over and over pattern

don't they?

a bit like monty python skits, you always know what's coming up

monty python link

You're link doesn't go anywhere.

I asked a question because he didn't specify what he was talking about. Bungees or nets that are used to strap things down would not likely be interfaced in the same manner as those used specifically for braking.

Ara Pacis
2012-Dec-31, 07:38 PM
Unfortunately you are using evidence in a almost 10m/s/s architecture (ie 1G) which has absolutely nothing to do with the OP premise of a 0G living quarters (almost- can I say it, a strawman argument?)I stated that it was different environment at the outset.


I would be a lot more impressed if you could quote a lot of evidence of injuries caused by netting in a 0G enviromentI'd be a lot more impressed if you realized there was no such thing as an actual 0G environment anywhere in the universe. What we refer to as 0g is actually free-fall. As can be noted from some of the examples I posted, the subjects were in free-fall when the injury was sustained.


(I can show lots of evidence that standing up can be dangerous- however we all do it every day)And perhaps standing up will be dangerous in a 0g architecture too.

Ara Pacis
2012-Dec-31, 07:43 PM
Actually...

after reading your links...

the first link (titled Toes lost in shrimp net.) is a wikipedia link (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Deltavs.svg) that appears (to my admittedly untrained eye) to have little to do with toes, shrimps, nets or losing any of the above in any combination...(As far as I know, shrimp nets and toes lost therein are a fairly uncommon occurrence in travel between the earth, the moon and mars or any combination of the above- see the link for details)You're right, I must not have copied the new URL. I'll see if I can find it and repost. And are you suggesting that only exact circumstances can be used to reference exact circumstances and that nothing of similarity can be learned and carried over to analysis of similar circumstances?

Xibalba
2013-Jan-01, 12:07 AM
Speculation; Some humans or humanoid evolved species eventually find themselves adapted to life in 0.0 gravity conditions. How? Well, however you like. Maybe genetic engineering. Why? I'm sure they had reasons. Regardless, the end result is a smaller, less massive version of a human being (perhaps other superficial differences) who has physically, mentally, and socially adapted to 0g cities navigating through space.

Based on these descriptions, what do you think the architecture of their city ships would look like? Exterior and interior. I'm wondering about efficiency of space and the logistics of an almost completely self-sufficient arcology. I am also curious as to how outdated terrestrial influences might impact the design.

Thank you.



(It's possible this thread is better placed in Science and Technology.)

First, any structure will create a gravity so a civilization living in 0.0g, as you specified, is highly unlikely. However, the gs might be insignificant, although different than zero. Then, the architecture has no limitation, except the fact that it has to contain a pressurized atmosphere if you don't want the citizens to all live in spacesuits. The only thing architects might look after is efficiency and ergonomics.

swampyankee
2013-Jan-01, 10:42 PM
Interestingly, I work in an industry that uses bench grinders, lathes, mills etc daily, but since my apprenticeship, its been industry standard to always remove rings, watches etc, but its also mandatory to wear long sleeve shirts ( buttoned or wrist straps), bare arms is a big no no, first time verbal warning, second time written warning, third time off site...

That's interesting, as in every factory in which my father worked (and there were quite a few) and in which I've worked (not many), short sleeves were demanded, because long sleeves were likely to pull hands into machinery. The only exception would be welders, who were expected to have long sleeves. Most US shops don't (or at least didn't; the last time I was on a factory floor was in the 1990s) have workers wear overalls. Some require aprons, which are supposed to have break-away strings, with good reason: my father had a cousin who found those inconvenient; my father went to the funeral after the apron got caught and the strings strangled him (he also went to the funeral of a friend, an industrial electrician, who was killed by the helper's malfeasance).

neilzero
2013-Jan-02, 02:07 AM
It is interesting that a spherical habitat with a radius of 2 meters = 33 cubic meters, is moderately spacious for 12 humans in zero g. Possibly someone will get stranded at dead center, but a moderate breeze from the air recyling unit will eventually push them toward the air return where hand holds are reachable. We would want at least three small rooms that could be used for occasional privacy. Some would even learn to sleep while floating/drifting about the habitat. The net gravity of the sphere is approximately zero, everywhere inside, and the miscelanious contants likely produce less than one micro g. Neil

ZunarJ5
2013-Jan-03, 08:04 PM
It is interesting that a spherical habitat with a radius of 2 meters = 33 cubic meters, is moderately spacious for 12 humans in zero g. Possibly someone will get stranded at dead center, but a moderate breeze from the air recyling unit will eventually push them toward the air return where hand holds are reachable. We would want at least three small rooms that could be used for occasional privacy. Some would even learn to sleep while floating/drifting about the habitat. The net gravity of the sphere is approximately zero, everywhere inside, and the miscelanious contants likely produce less than one micro g. Neil

2 meters? Must be a typo... I am almost 2 meters tall...

ZunarJ5
2013-Jan-03, 08:06 PM
First, any structure will create a gravity so a civilization living in 0.0g, as you specified, is highly unlikely. However, the gs might be insignificant, although different than zero. Then, the architecture has no limitation, except the fact that it has to contain a pressurized atmosphere if you don't want the citizens to all live in spacesuits. The only thing architects might look after is efficiency and ergonomics.

I was reminded of micro gravity. Thank you though.

ZunarJ5
2013-Jan-03, 08:11 PM
People quite commonly work with and climb on nets without body parts flying every which way. Instances of injury are rare, and easy to avoid: simply using large diameter cords would make most of those incidents impossible.

I actually really like the idea of nets.

I was thinking, lots and lots of nets... but with the gaps being large enough to climb through so that the nets don't present an obstacle.

publiusr
2013-Jan-05, 07:01 PM
Just on a side note. Maybe if kids are on spacecraft for much of their early life when life-support is at a premium, when they go planetside--they will have a greener mindset?