Another big difference is that to jump up in a rotating ship would be very much different than in gravity. Once you jump up, the centrifugal force no longer applies to you at that moment.
You're still spinning. Unless a force acts against you to stop you, you will still "travel along" with the centrifuge normally and fall back down to the ground.
Even if a tennis ball, for example, were introduced into the centrifuge,
not spinning, the airflow would cause it to speed up and eventually fall to the "floor".
I've read that if it has 1.000 meters in radius, it would have to rotate once every 63 seconds, which means that the outer walls would rotate at a speed of 360 km/h.
I hope you mean a radius of 1 kilometer; a radius of 1 meter is far too small for anything useful.
You may want to try out
SpinCalc. It gives 0.94 RPM for a 1 kilometer radius centrifuge to produce 1 g.
Not only that you need a lot of fuel to introduce that rotation
I would actually like to see the math behind the propellant requirements for this. Low thrust but high efficiency thrusters (like ion drives or even arcjets) are probably the answer.
But those ships have to be very robust and asymmetries in the mass distribution have to be avoided.
I don't think they should be that sensitive to asymmetries in mass distribution, but such things should certainly be taken into account. Perhaps the pumping of water around the structure could facilitate balance; water is needed anyway for drinking, washing and perhaps radiation shielding.
Even if all this would work perfectly, you still would have to put it into space, i.e. lift all the thousands of tons up there and assemble the whole thing.
I think this is where a ring incurs a whole lot of mass for nothing. You can do the same (although you will have less area) with two modules spinning on a common axis. If bound by a tether, the centrifuge system suddenly becomes
very light. You can even use your propellant system as a counterweight, when you are not thrusting. This works well when the vehicle is a "tensionary" design; i.e. the engines pull the vehicle along behind them.
Obviously a large habitat for many hundreds or thousands of people is going to have a high mass. But it does not have to be overly massive.
It is a dream pipe logistically and financially, isn't it?
Not
quite.
Living in zero g for a while is unimaginably less expensive than to build and operate a rotating ship.
Living in zero g for too long will
cause your muscoskeletal and cardiovascular systems to atrophy. Unless there is a way to mitigate this, sending your crewmembers on missions longer than a year (or several months, for missions where they will have to engage in strenuous activity at the destination) will not be advantageous for the success of a mission.
travel by the speed of light, which is impossible anyway,
The ability for faster than light travel
has been seriously researched.
If it is at all possible, you would have to avoid causality violations, and most proposed methods require large amounts of energy to work (as well as purely hypothetical "negative matter"). Nevertheless it is an unlikely possibility.
I know, some innovator made similar claims regarding our todays technologies. But the universe is neither a rail or road, nor the Atlantic Ocean
There is a
big difference, literally.
The difference is that today the "insignificant innovators" know enough about what we're dealing with to make serious studies of about how to explore and live in space. Even "far fetched" concepts such as fusion propulsion, or extremely large "space habitats" are based on technologies and scientific knowledge that we have
today.
Space may be bigger than an ocean, but our ships are just a tad faster.
By several km/s. :lol:
thanks again.
