Petition for the US to Build a Death Star by 2016

Started by a2capt, December 17, 2012, 05:56:51 PM

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

a2capt

Secure resources and funding, and begin construction of a Death Star by 2016.

Those who sign here petition the United States government to secure funding and resources, and begin construction on a Death Star by 2016.

By focusing our defense resources into a space-superiority platform and weapon system such as a Death Star, the government can spur job creation in the fields of construction, engineering, space exploration, and more, and strengthen our national defense.

https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/secure-resources-and-funding-and-begin-construction-death-star-2016/wlfKzFkN

Yes, a lark, a gag, I know.

But.

Imagine the knowledge gained if some project of similar nature were to actually not be a pie in the sky.

We see all these Science Fiction shows, movies, where they have ships the size of 6 Wal*Marts, and they seem to "run forever".  Until we get serious about a fuel source, we're tethered to the Earth regardless. The Moon, sure. We have batteries that last that long now. Just don't send LiPo batteries ;-)

Gravity would be the biggest hurdle to me. To simulate Earth-like gravity so people can have things on their desk, walk in, sit down, etc.  The way the Space Station is, with stuff stuck all over the place is fine for a science platform, but colonization and long term living in space needs to be a bit more "normal". 

In all the movies and shows containing giant space craft that come to mind, Moonraker and The Black Hole are the only ones I can recall where the ship, fortress, station, whatever, gets hit and loses gravity.

Al Sayre

IIRC, some of the early designs called for Skylab and then the ISS to be large wheel like designs that rotated about a central axis.  The majority of the labs, dorms etc were to be located around the outer rim so that in theory, centrifugal force would provide artificial gravity for "normality"...
Lt Col Al Sayre
MS Wing Staff Dude
Admiral, Great Navy of the State of Nebraska
GRW #2787

JeffDG

Quote from: Al Sayre on December 17, 2012, 08:49:17 PM
IIRC, some of the early designs called for Skylab and then the ISS to be large wheel like designs that rotated about a central axis.  The majority of the labs, dorms etc were to be located around the outer rim so that in theory, centrifugal force would provide artificial gravity for "normality"...
The big issue with that is both mechanical (You need a stationary "hub" to dock with, and you'd have to have a massive bearing to handle the connection between the stationary hub and the rotating wheel, along with physiologic.

On Earth, the difference in gravitational acceleration between your feet and your head (approximately 2 m) is negligible and entirely imperceptible (remember the force of gravity decreases as a square of the distance, and 2 m is a negligible portion of the radius of the Earth).  In a rotating frame of reference however, that same 2m can be a significant portion of the distance from your feet to the centre of the rotating hub, and as such, the act of lying down would subject your middle ear (where you do all your balance from) to a easily detectable, and incredibly disorienting, change in the feeling of gravity.

Al Sayre

Hence why they were early designs, the engineering and human factors issues were too great to overcome at a reasonable cost...
Lt Col Al Sayre
MS Wing Staff Dude
Admiral, Great Navy of the State of Nebraska
GRW #2787

krnlpanick

2nd Lt. Christopher A. Schmidt, CAP

PHall

Quote from: JeffDG on December 17, 2012, 08:58:33 PM
Quote from: Al Sayre on December 17, 2012, 08:49:17 PM
IIRC, some of the early designs called for Skylab and then the ISS to be large wheel like designs that rotated about a central axis.  The majority of the labs, dorms etc were to be located around the outer rim so that in theory, centrifugal force would provide artificial gravity for "normality"...
The big issue with that is both mechanical (You need a stationary "hub" to dock with, and you'd have to have a massive bearing to handle the connection between the stationary hub and the rotating wheel, along with physiologic.

On Earth, the difference in gravitational acceleration between your feet and your head (approximately 2 m) is negligible and entirely imperceptible (remember the force of gravity decreases as a square of the distance, and 2 m is a negligible portion of the radius of the Earth).  In a rotating frame of reference however, that same 2m can be a significant portion of the distance from your feet to the centre of the rotating hub, and as such, the act of lying down would subject your middle ear (where you do all your balance from) to a easily detectable, and incredibly disorienting, change in the feeling of gravity.

Why would you need a "massive bearing"? They would dock the way we dock now.
You match the local motion of the ship/space station/whatever you're docking with and accomplish the docking.


ProdigalJim

I still get misty when I re-watch that scene in 2001, when the Pan Am Clipper gently rotates to match the space station's speed, the Blue Danube playing underneath. After seeing that as a kid, I felt sure I'd get to grow up and serve in a space force of some kind. I feel cheated...
Jim Mathews, Lt. Col., CAP
VAWG/XP
My Mitchell Has Four Digits...

a2capt

..and we don't even have Pan Am anymore.  :-[


... But .. Marty McFly showed us that we would!


The 'USS Cygnus' from the Black Hole, like the Death Star is designed in a typical flat multi-level layout. Unless every single thing brought onboard is made of some sort of magnetic matter and the whole bottom of the thing.. attracts everything..

SarDragon

The bottom doesn't have to attract anything. Each deck just needs a magnetic layer for the magnets to stick to. A composite deck with a thin steel surface layer would work well.
Dave Bowles
Maj, CAP
AT1, USN Retired
50 Year Member
Mitchell Award (unnumbered)
C/WO, CAP, Ret

docsteve

Quote from: Al Sayre on December 17, 2012, 08:49:17 PM
... centrifugal force would provide artificial gravity for "normality"...

Just to be precise, a device that produces a force through rotation is a centrifuge: the force acting within the centrifuge that prevents objects from moving away from the center of rotation (literally on a tangential path) is centripetal force.

Physically, there is no such thing as "centrifugal" force, although that term describes what is humanly perceived as reality.
Steve Sconfienza, Ph.D.
former captain

docsteve

Quote from: SarDragon on December 18, 2012, 04:44:00 AM
The bottom doesn't have to attract anything. Each deck just needs a magnetic layer for the magnets to stick to. A composite deck with a thin steel surface layer would work well.

Correct, but this does not provide a physiological remedy to weightlessness (see the linked article above) for long-term exposure: the soles of your shoes may be anchored to the floor, but your body is still weightless.

Steve Sconfienza, Ph.D.
former captain

SarDragon

Quote from: docsteve on December 23, 2012, 07:30:18 PM
Quote from: SarDragon on December 18, 2012, 04:44:00 AM
The bottom doesn't have to attract anything. Each deck just needs a magnetic layer for the magnets to stick to. A composite deck with a thin steel surface layer would work well.

Correct, but this does not provide a physiological remedy to weightlessness (see the linked article above) for long-term exposure: the soles of your shoes may be anchored to the floor, but your body is still weightless.

If that's the case, why does the water stay in the bucket when you swing it over your head?
Dave Bowles
Maj, CAP
AT1, USN Retired
50 Year Member
Mitchell Award (unnumbered)
C/WO, CAP, Ret

docsteve

Quote from: SarDragon on December 23, 2012, 09:18:29 PM
Quote from: docsteve on December 23, 2012, 07:30:18 PM
Quote from: SarDragon on December 18, 2012, 04:44:00 AM
The bottom doesn't have to attract anything. Each deck just needs a magnetic layer for the magnets to stick to. A composite deck with a thin steel surface layer would work well.

Correct, but this does not provide a physiological remedy to weightlessness (see the linked article above) for long-term exposure: the soles of your shoes may be anchored to the floor, but your body is still weightless.

If that's the case, why does the water stay in the bucket when you swing it over your head?

I'm guessing that you're asking about tangential acceleration and centripetal force. 

When you rotate the bucket,

a) you are imparting angular momentum to the bucket and its contents.

b) at any given point in the rotation you are accelerating the the "water" 90 degrees away from its previous location. 

c) so at any given point on the arc of motion the water is being accelerated away from its extant position, and the framework of the bucket (sides, bottom) is containing the water, exerting an inward force against the (desired) motion of the water, which -- once rotation starts -- is tangent to the arc of the rotation at any given point on that arc.

d) during the rotation, while the bucket is overhead, inverted, it is then just matching force against force: when the outward force of the water against the framework of the bucket is equal to or greater than the force of gravity acting on it the water does not come out of the bucket.

N.B., you have to provide sufficient acceleration to generate sufficient counter-force to gravity to cause the water to say in the bucket.

See?

For the curious, this is "classical mechanics," the pre-Einstein, Isaac Newton formulation of gravity and motion, usually 1st semester college physics, along with the forces in moving elevators and the trajectory of projectiles. 

Steve Sconfienza, Ph.D.
former captain

SarDragon

Yeah, I know all that. Freshman physics at two different schools.

QuoteCorrect, but this does not provide a physiological remedy to weightlessness (see the linked article above) for long-term exposure: the soles of your shoes may be anchored to the floor, but your body is still weightless.

Weight is the force due to the acceleration of gravity. If you're rotating something in space, you are providing an acceleration, as explained above. If there's enough acceleration to anchor your shoes, there should be enough to settle your inner ear. The overall sensation will probably be different, due to the relatively small radius of rotation (10s of meters, vice 1000s of miles) of the structure.

Another example of that would be a level turn in an airplane at a 60 degree bank, which gives a 2 G turn.
Dave Bowles
Maj, CAP
AT1, USN Retired
50 Year Member
Mitchell Award (unnumbered)
C/WO, CAP, Ret

docsteve

Quote from: SarDragon on December 23, 2012, 10:33:12 PM
Yeah, I know all that. Freshman physics at two different schools.

Yep -- Freshman year! 
Steve Sconfienza, Ph.D.
former captain

a2capt


Well.. phut..  >:(

This Isn't the Petition Response You're Looking For

The Administration shares your desire for job creation and a strong national defense, but a Death Star isn't on the horizon. Here are a few reasons:


       
  • The construction of the Death Star has been estimated to cost more than $850,000,000,000,000,000. We're working hard to reduce the deficit, not expand it.
  • The Administration does not support blowing up planets.
  • Why would we spend countless taxpayer dollars on a Death Star with a fundamental flaw that can be exploited by a one-man starship?
Gotta admit, they had fun with the response. :)

https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/response/isnt-petition-response-youre-looking

If you do pursue a career in a science, technology, engineering or math-related field, the Force will be with us! Remember, the Death Star's power to destroy a planet, or even a whole star system, is insignificant next to the power of the Force.

RogueLeader

Quote from: a2capt on January 12, 2013, 03:44:26 AM
   
   
  • Why would we spend countless taxpayer dollars on a Death Star with a fundamental flaw that can be exploited by a one-man starship?

Not really, that thermal exhaust port was a secondary port that, according to an engineer on the project, was definitely not needed.  It has also been established that had said engineer not gotten too busy with all the other projects; that thermal port would not have been built.
WYWG DP

GRW 3340