If human space travel is limited by the G force vulnerability, is there a way to counter G forces?How fast will 1g get you there?How would manned interstellar travel become feasible?How deep is the force well of L4 and L5 Lagrangian Points of Earth-Sun set?Alcubierre “warp” drive and gravitation/orbital considerationsCould a Human reach escape velocity by jumping from the surface of Ceres (a dwarf planet)?Assuming that gravity modification technology will be possible, could a mission reach Kepler - 186f (for example) in a human life span?How can astronauts float in space without being affected by the gravitational force of nearby objects?Why does a gravity capture require a loss of velocity?Shear forces between Shuttle, tank, and boosters - what pushes what?Does the detection of gravitational waves prove we can travel faster than the speed of light?Gravitational forces affecting acceleration on a space ship with artificial gravityTwo 1000 kg gold spheres orbit their CM in near-contact, great way to measure G or limited by spaceflight issues?
Can one be a co-translator of a book, if he does not know the language that the book is translated into?
Blender 2.8 I can't see vertices, edges or faces in edit mode
Why doesn't H₄O²⁺ exist?
Is it canonical bit space?
In a Spin are Both Wings Stalled?
What exploit are these user agents trying to use?
What reasons are there for a Capitalist to oppose a 100% inheritance tax?
I would say: "You are another teacher", but she is a woman and I am a man
Were any external disk drives stacked vertically?
How can I prevent hyper evolved versions of regular creatures from wiping out their cousins?
When a company launches a new product do they "come out" with a new product or do they "come up" with a new product?
Can a virus destroy the BIOS of a modern computer?
Combinations of multiple lists
Alternative to sending password over mail?
Can I use a neutral wire from another outlet to repair a broken neutral?
Brothers & sisters
What killed these X2 caps?
What to put in ESTA if staying in US for a few days before going on to Canada
How can saying a song's name be a copyright violation?
Would Slavery Reparations be considered Bills of Attainder and hence Illegal?
Can a rocket refuel on Mars from water?
If a Gelatinous Cube takes up the entire space of a Pit Trap, what happens when a creature falls into the trap but succeeds on the saving throw?
Emailing HOD to enhance faculty application
What's the point of deactivating Num Lock on login screens?
If human space travel is limited by the G force vulnerability, is there a way to counter G forces?
How fast will 1g get you there?How would manned interstellar travel become feasible?How deep is the force well of L4 and L5 Lagrangian Points of Earth-Sun set?Alcubierre “warp” drive and gravitation/orbital considerationsCould a Human reach escape velocity by jumping from the surface of Ceres (a dwarf planet)?Assuming that gravity modification technology will be possible, could a mission reach Kepler - 186f (for example) in a human life span?How can astronauts float in space without being affected by the gravitational force of nearby objects?Why does a gravity capture require a loss of velocity?Shear forces between Shuttle, tank, and boosters - what pushes what?Does the detection of gravitational waves prove we can travel faster than the speed of light?Gravitational forces affecting acceleration on a space ship with artificial gravityTwo 1000 kg gold spheres orbit their CM in near-contact, great way to measure G or limited by spaceflight issues?
$begingroup$
I read somewhere that prolonged G forces (even 2 Gs) are not tolerated by human physiology and that this ultimately limits our ability to sustain space travel.
Are there any tactics to reduce G force stress on the body?
gravity
New contributor
$endgroup$
|
show 2 more comments
$begingroup$
I read somewhere that prolonged G forces (even 2 Gs) are not tolerated by human physiology and that this ultimately limits our ability to sustain space travel.
Are there any tactics to reduce G force stress on the body?
gravity
New contributor
$endgroup$
16
$begingroup$
The first part of that may be true (that sustained G forces kill you) although this would be a better question if you could give your source. On the other hand current rockets are only able to sustain that kind of acceleration for a few minutes, so it's not really a problem. The scope of possible space travel would massively increase if we could sustain 1G for hours or days (or even years) and only once that is achieved would there be much point in looking at the problems with sustaining 2Gs.
$endgroup$
– Steve Linton
yesterday
17
$begingroup$
What Steve said. Human space travel is not limited by G force vulnerability, except during launch and landing. But once you are out of the atmosphere, fuel is so precious that we use the most gentle, efficient accelerations that will work, and even those accelerations are only momentary.
$endgroup$
– Wayne Conrad
yesterday
$begingroup$
Prolonged G forces, even 2 G or less could only produced in a centrifuge on Earth. Rockets in space are limited to a few minutes. There is no available technology for a duration of hours or days. But a constant 1 G accleration would not limit our ability to sustain space travel much more than 2 G. Both are pure science fiction today.
$endgroup$
– Uwe
yesterday
4
$begingroup$
See related How fast will 1g get you there?
$endgroup$
– James Jenkins
yesterday
1
$begingroup$
Roundtrip times at 1g, including subjective time for a relativistic traveller upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f5/Roundtriptimes.png
$endgroup$
– JollyJoker
15 hours ago
|
show 2 more comments
$begingroup$
I read somewhere that prolonged G forces (even 2 Gs) are not tolerated by human physiology and that this ultimately limits our ability to sustain space travel.
Are there any tactics to reduce G force stress on the body?
gravity
New contributor
$endgroup$
I read somewhere that prolonged G forces (even 2 Gs) are not tolerated by human physiology and that this ultimately limits our ability to sustain space travel.
Are there any tactics to reduce G force stress on the body?
gravity
gravity
New contributor
New contributor
New contributor
asked yesterday
DaaoodDaaood
9913
9913
New contributor
New contributor
16
$begingroup$
The first part of that may be true (that sustained G forces kill you) although this would be a better question if you could give your source. On the other hand current rockets are only able to sustain that kind of acceleration for a few minutes, so it's not really a problem. The scope of possible space travel would massively increase if we could sustain 1G for hours or days (or even years) and only once that is achieved would there be much point in looking at the problems with sustaining 2Gs.
$endgroup$
– Steve Linton
yesterday
17
$begingroup$
What Steve said. Human space travel is not limited by G force vulnerability, except during launch and landing. But once you are out of the atmosphere, fuel is so precious that we use the most gentle, efficient accelerations that will work, and even those accelerations are only momentary.
$endgroup$
– Wayne Conrad
yesterday
$begingroup$
Prolonged G forces, even 2 G or less could only produced in a centrifuge on Earth. Rockets in space are limited to a few minutes. There is no available technology for a duration of hours or days. But a constant 1 G accleration would not limit our ability to sustain space travel much more than 2 G. Both are pure science fiction today.
$endgroup$
– Uwe
yesterday
4
$begingroup$
See related How fast will 1g get you there?
$endgroup$
– James Jenkins
yesterday
1
$begingroup$
Roundtrip times at 1g, including subjective time for a relativistic traveller upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f5/Roundtriptimes.png
$endgroup$
– JollyJoker
15 hours ago
|
show 2 more comments
16
$begingroup$
The first part of that may be true (that sustained G forces kill you) although this would be a better question if you could give your source. On the other hand current rockets are only able to sustain that kind of acceleration for a few minutes, so it's not really a problem. The scope of possible space travel would massively increase if we could sustain 1G for hours or days (or even years) and only once that is achieved would there be much point in looking at the problems with sustaining 2Gs.
$endgroup$
– Steve Linton
yesterday
17
$begingroup$
What Steve said. Human space travel is not limited by G force vulnerability, except during launch and landing. But once you are out of the atmosphere, fuel is so precious that we use the most gentle, efficient accelerations that will work, and even those accelerations are only momentary.
$endgroup$
– Wayne Conrad
yesterday
$begingroup$
Prolonged G forces, even 2 G or less could only produced in a centrifuge on Earth. Rockets in space are limited to a few minutes. There is no available technology for a duration of hours or days. But a constant 1 G accleration would not limit our ability to sustain space travel much more than 2 G. Both are pure science fiction today.
$endgroup$
– Uwe
yesterday
4
$begingroup$
See related How fast will 1g get you there?
$endgroup$
– James Jenkins
yesterday
1
$begingroup$
Roundtrip times at 1g, including subjective time for a relativistic traveller upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f5/Roundtriptimes.png
$endgroup$
– JollyJoker
15 hours ago
16
16
$begingroup$
The first part of that may be true (that sustained G forces kill you) although this would be a better question if you could give your source. On the other hand current rockets are only able to sustain that kind of acceleration for a few minutes, so it's not really a problem. The scope of possible space travel would massively increase if we could sustain 1G for hours or days (or even years) and only once that is achieved would there be much point in looking at the problems with sustaining 2Gs.
$endgroup$
– Steve Linton
yesterday
$begingroup$
The first part of that may be true (that sustained G forces kill you) although this would be a better question if you could give your source. On the other hand current rockets are only able to sustain that kind of acceleration for a few minutes, so it's not really a problem. The scope of possible space travel would massively increase if we could sustain 1G for hours or days (or even years) and only once that is achieved would there be much point in looking at the problems with sustaining 2Gs.
$endgroup$
– Steve Linton
yesterday
17
17
$begingroup$
What Steve said. Human space travel is not limited by G force vulnerability, except during launch and landing. But once you are out of the atmosphere, fuel is so precious that we use the most gentle, efficient accelerations that will work, and even those accelerations are only momentary.
$endgroup$
– Wayne Conrad
yesterday
$begingroup$
What Steve said. Human space travel is not limited by G force vulnerability, except during launch and landing. But once you are out of the atmosphere, fuel is so precious that we use the most gentle, efficient accelerations that will work, and even those accelerations are only momentary.
$endgroup$
– Wayne Conrad
yesterday
$begingroup$
Prolonged G forces, even 2 G or less could only produced in a centrifuge on Earth. Rockets in space are limited to a few minutes. There is no available technology for a duration of hours or days. But a constant 1 G accleration would not limit our ability to sustain space travel much more than 2 G. Both are pure science fiction today.
$endgroup$
– Uwe
yesterday
$begingroup$
Prolonged G forces, even 2 G or less could only produced in a centrifuge on Earth. Rockets in space are limited to a few minutes. There is no available technology for a duration of hours or days. But a constant 1 G accleration would not limit our ability to sustain space travel much more than 2 G. Both are pure science fiction today.
$endgroup$
– Uwe
yesterday
4
4
$begingroup$
See related How fast will 1g get you there?
$endgroup$
– James Jenkins
yesterday
$begingroup$
See related How fast will 1g get you there?
$endgroup$
– James Jenkins
yesterday
1
1
$begingroup$
Roundtrip times at 1g, including subjective time for a relativistic traveller upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f5/Roundtriptimes.png
$endgroup$
– JollyJoker
15 hours ago
$begingroup$
Roundtrip times at 1g, including subjective time for a relativistic traveller upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f5/Roundtriptimes.png
$endgroup$
– JollyJoker
15 hours ago
|
show 2 more comments
5 Answers
5
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
The problem isn't so much that humans cannot sustain high G forces for any extended length of time: The problem is that rockets cannot. If a rocket could sustain 1 g acceleration for a bit over a day, we could go to Mars in a bit over a day. It instead takes several months to get to Mars because the rockets used to get there only fire for a few minutes. The spacecraft then coasts all the way to Mars. Just a few hundredths of a g of sustained acceleration would cut the trip time to Mars down to a week or so.
The chemical engines currently used to propel spacecraft on interplanetary trajectories coupled with the tyranny of the rocket equation are the key reasons rocket cannot sustain high accelerations for an extended length of time. There are some promising low thrust / high efficiency (high specific impulse) technologies such as ion thrusters that might help humans get beyond the Moon. Ion thrusters are in use now, but none are quite ready for prime time when it comes to human spaceflight. There are some promising high thrust / somewhat high specific impulse nuclear technologies that might be useful; these are mired in politics.
Other than science fiction, there is no known technology that could take humans beyond the solar system.
$endgroup$
11
$begingroup$
I disagree with your last sentence we have the tech to get humans beyond the solar system. Getting there and back in a single human life time would be a totally different question/answer. +1 for the rest of the answer though
$endgroup$
– James Jenkins
yesterday
4
$begingroup$
@davek Your max speed is lightspeed, though as we near it the energy required to accelerate further steadily climbs - So your basic premise is sound but isn't relevant until we're working in very large fractions of C - or never an issue at all, with present technology.
$endgroup$
– Saiboogu
yesterday
7
$begingroup$
@davek you stop accelerating in a plane because the drag from air resistance is equal and opposite to the thrust from the engines at some speed, since there's no air in space there's basically nothing to stop you accelerating more until you get close the speed of light and relativistic effects become significant
$endgroup$
– llama
yesterday
2
$begingroup$
Getting into orbit would be a fair bit more efficient with higher accelerations -- as a rough estimate, each second you spend accelerating toward orbital velocity costs you 10 m/s in gravity drag.
$endgroup$
– Mark
yesterday
4
$begingroup$
@davek The source must be making some assumption about the amount of reaction mass you are able or willing to start with. An ion engine is, in fact, a rocket like any other, just one with a very high exhaust velocity. Accelerating to to 90 km/s with current ion drives would involve about 90% of the starting mass of the spaceship being reaction mass, but if you could somehow manage to start with 99% reaction mass, you could achieve 180 km/s.
$endgroup$
– Steve Linton
6 hours ago
|
show 14 more comments
$begingroup$
Ignoring the major point that human tolerance of G forces is not the limiting factor on space travel, plenty of thought has been made on how to counteract G forces, not least by 60's scifi writers.
You can find more information than you ever wanted at Projectrho on this topic.
The general gist: for lowish accelerations like 2 G, you don't need to do anything special to the human body, just make sure you're lying either prone or on your back, and remaining disciplined about your breathing.
For higher Gs, like 5G+, you need to carefully manage the human body, putting it in a gel-like coccoon of similar density, and substituting air for a breathable liquid. Any differences in density can result in the denser parts of the body tending to 'settle' towards the back of the ship, and so must be avoided where possible.
Of course, such measures to counteract G forces can only ever be necessary with the use of nuclear or antimatter propellant. Chemical propellants do not burn for long enough to require such measures.
$endgroup$
6
$begingroup$
Best answer. This actually addresses the question, flawed as its premise is.
$endgroup$
– user45266
21 hours ago
1
$begingroup$
In fiction, balance with gravity from mass you carry along, like the classic 'sailboat carrying its own fan' -- scifi.sx or tvtropes (warning! warning!) at 'Inertial Dampening'. (And in another McAndrew/Roker story, Sheffield also has the solution to propelling this monster -- self-energy of interstellar vacuum. Sure.)
$endgroup$
– dave_thompson_085
20 hours ago
$begingroup$
Just install reactionless thrusters. Lots of SciFi spaceships have them. :-)
$endgroup$
– Carl Witthoft
9 hours ago
2
$begingroup$
He was exposed to those G forces briefly. The question is about longer duration G-forces. 30G is definitely not survivable over the period of a day.
$endgroup$
– Ingolifs
5 hours ago
1
$begingroup$
Going past the 60's...Most modern SciFi seems to admit G-dampening/G-compensators/G-Generators are A Thing in spaceflight, but don't go into any details about how they do it.
$endgroup$
– T.E.D.
4 hours ago
|
show 1 more comment
$begingroup$
This is way beyond foreseeable economic possibilities, but the physics is sound:
Gravity is a surefire, scalable, elegant way to counteract G forces from acceleration.
A planet-sized spaceship with its own gravitational pull of 5 Gs could accelerate at 4 Gs, people living towards its tail would only experience the difference, one G.
(note that I'm talking about a ship roughly 5 times the mass of Earth, minus density differences)
The same is true for a ship with 100 Gs accelerating at 99 Gs.
$endgroup$
1
$begingroup$
Of course, then you have the problem of high-G loads when you stop accelerating. And you probably want to decelerate once you arrive at your destination, which is even worse for our hapless passengers.
$endgroup$
– chepner
6 hours ago
$begingroup$
@chepner Put them on the orbit of their planet-ship, then cut off the acceleration. They'll be in microgravity.
$endgroup$
– kubanczyk
5 hours ago
$begingroup$
Why not just be in orbit the entire time? Then you don't need a larger planet, or have the acceleration tied to the gravitational pull of the planet.
$endgroup$
– chepner
5 hours ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
G Force is a function of acceleration.
Gravity works on a mass to pull it toward another mass. Large masses have higher levels of gravitational attraction. The force of gravity on Jupiter and Saturn is stronger thatn that on earth. The moon less than on earth.
On earth gravity is a force that continues to pulls us down toward the center of the earth. The physical surface stops that acceleration. Our weight is the measure of that force acting on our mass.
Acceleration is a change in speed. When coasting (no acceleration nor deceleration forces) then there is no g-load (weightlessness in space).
Accelerating in a car, plane or spaceship causes G-Loads. Again, it is the acceleration that is causing the load. Banking an airplane in a 60 degree bank will cause g-loads on the body due to centripetal force. Looping and airplane will do the same. An inside look causes positive g-load while and outside loop causes negative g-load. Both are measured by effect on the body. When upright, positive g-loads causing blood to flow out of the head toward the feet and negative g-loads causing blood to flow from feet to head. human bodies tolerate positive g-loads better than negative. Lying down, like in many fighter jets help mitigate the impacts as more of the body is level.
So toleration of space travel is a combination of tolerating g-loads during accelerating and deceleration phases and weightlessness (absence of acceleration) periods which tend to affect muscles, bone densities, etc.
New contributor
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
G force isn't a function of acceleration. it is acceleration.
$endgroup$
– Ingolifs
1 hour ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Yes, rotating high intensity magnetic fields at specific frequency. It's how "so called" UFO's counter the effects of inertia on the interior.
The particles that form you and the "so called" atoms of the interior space surrounding you in the craft - can all be manipulated in a phase-lock spin/rotation that changes the physical property you know as "density" to a constant value - so there is nothing to compress or expand at the molecule level. Shhh...
New contributor
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
I think you may have confused this site with the Worldbuilding Stack Exchange...
$endgroup$
– duskwuff
13 mins ago
add a comment |
Your Answer
StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function ()
return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function ()
StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix)
StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\\(","\\)"]]);
);
);
, "mathjax-editing");
StackExchange.ready(function()
var channelOptions =
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "508"
;
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function()
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled)
StackExchange.using("snippets", function()
createEditor();
);
else
createEditor();
);
function createEditor()
StackExchange.prepareEditor(
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: false,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: null,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader:
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
,
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
);
);
Daaood is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fspace.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f35256%2fif-human-space-travel-is-limited-by-the-g-force-vulnerability-is-there-a-way-to%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
5 Answers
5
active
oldest
votes
5 Answers
5
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
The problem isn't so much that humans cannot sustain high G forces for any extended length of time: The problem is that rockets cannot. If a rocket could sustain 1 g acceleration for a bit over a day, we could go to Mars in a bit over a day. It instead takes several months to get to Mars because the rockets used to get there only fire for a few minutes. The spacecraft then coasts all the way to Mars. Just a few hundredths of a g of sustained acceleration would cut the trip time to Mars down to a week or so.
The chemical engines currently used to propel spacecraft on interplanetary trajectories coupled with the tyranny of the rocket equation are the key reasons rocket cannot sustain high accelerations for an extended length of time. There are some promising low thrust / high efficiency (high specific impulse) technologies such as ion thrusters that might help humans get beyond the Moon. Ion thrusters are in use now, but none are quite ready for prime time when it comes to human spaceflight. There are some promising high thrust / somewhat high specific impulse nuclear technologies that might be useful; these are mired in politics.
Other than science fiction, there is no known technology that could take humans beyond the solar system.
$endgroup$
11
$begingroup$
I disagree with your last sentence we have the tech to get humans beyond the solar system. Getting there and back in a single human life time would be a totally different question/answer. +1 for the rest of the answer though
$endgroup$
– James Jenkins
yesterday
4
$begingroup$
@davek Your max speed is lightspeed, though as we near it the energy required to accelerate further steadily climbs - So your basic premise is sound but isn't relevant until we're working in very large fractions of C - or never an issue at all, with present technology.
$endgroup$
– Saiboogu
yesterday
7
$begingroup$
@davek you stop accelerating in a plane because the drag from air resistance is equal and opposite to the thrust from the engines at some speed, since there's no air in space there's basically nothing to stop you accelerating more until you get close the speed of light and relativistic effects become significant
$endgroup$
– llama
yesterday
2
$begingroup$
Getting into orbit would be a fair bit more efficient with higher accelerations -- as a rough estimate, each second you spend accelerating toward orbital velocity costs you 10 m/s in gravity drag.
$endgroup$
– Mark
yesterday
4
$begingroup$
@davek The source must be making some assumption about the amount of reaction mass you are able or willing to start with. An ion engine is, in fact, a rocket like any other, just one with a very high exhaust velocity. Accelerating to to 90 km/s with current ion drives would involve about 90% of the starting mass of the spaceship being reaction mass, but if you could somehow manage to start with 99% reaction mass, you could achieve 180 km/s.
$endgroup$
– Steve Linton
6 hours ago
|
show 14 more comments
$begingroup$
The problem isn't so much that humans cannot sustain high G forces for any extended length of time: The problem is that rockets cannot. If a rocket could sustain 1 g acceleration for a bit over a day, we could go to Mars in a bit over a day. It instead takes several months to get to Mars because the rockets used to get there only fire for a few minutes. The spacecraft then coasts all the way to Mars. Just a few hundredths of a g of sustained acceleration would cut the trip time to Mars down to a week or so.
The chemical engines currently used to propel spacecraft on interplanetary trajectories coupled with the tyranny of the rocket equation are the key reasons rocket cannot sustain high accelerations for an extended length of time. There are some promising low thrust / high efficiency (high specific impulse) technologies such as ion thrusters that might help humans get beyond the Moon. Ion thrusters are in use now, but none are quite ready for prime time when it comes to human spaceflight. There are some promising high thrust / somewhat high specific impulse nuclear technologies that might be useful; these are mired in politics.
Other than science fiction, there is no known technology that could take humans beyond the solar system.
$endgroup$
11
$begingroup$
I disagree with your last sentence we have the tech to get humans beyond the solar system. Getting there and back in a single human life time would be a totally different question/answer. +1 for the rest of the answer though
$endgroup$
– James Jenkins
yesterday
4
$begingroup$
@davek Your max speed is lightspeed, though as we near it the energy required to accelerate further steadily climbs - So your basic premise is sound but isn't relevant until we're working in very large fractions of C - or never an issue at all, with present technology.
$endgroup$
– Saiboogu
yesterday
7
$begingroup$
@davek you stop accelerating in a plane because the drag from air resistance is equal and opposite to the thrust from the engines at some speed, since there's no air in space there's basically nothing to stop you accelerating more until you get close the speed of light and relativistic effects become significant
$endgroup$
– llama
yesterday
2
$begingroup$
Getting into orbit would be a fair bit more efficient with higher accelerations -- as a rough estimate, each second you spend accelerating toward orbital velocity costs you 10 m/s in gravity drag.
$endgroup$
– Mark
yesterday
4
$begingroup$
@davek The source must be making some assumption about the amount of reaction mass you are able or willing to start with. An ion engine is, in fact, a rocket like any other, just one with a very high exhaust velocity. Accelerating to to 90 km/s with current ion drives would involve about 90% of the starting mass of the spaceship being reaction mass, but if you could somehow manage to start with 99% reaction mass, you could achieve 180 km/s.
$endgroup$
– Steve Linton
6 hours ago
|
show 14 more comments
$begingroup$
The problem isn't so much that humans cannot sustain high G forces for any extended length of time: The problem is that rockets cannot. If a rocket could sustain 1 g acceleration for a bit over a day, we could go to Mars in a bit over a day. It instead takes several months to get to Mars because the rockets used to get there only fire for a few minutes. The spacecraft then coasts all the way to Mars. Just a few hundredths of a g of sustained acceleration would cut the trip time to Mars down to a week or so.
The chemical engines currently used to propel spacecraft on interplanetary trajectories coupled with the tyranny of the rocket equation are the key reasons rocket cannot sustain high accelerations for an extended length of time. There are some promising low thrust / high efficiency (high specific impulse) technologies such as ion thrusters that might help humans get beyond the Moon. Ion thrusters are in use now, but none are quite ready for prime time when it comes to human spaceflight. There are some promising high thrust / somewhat high specific impulse nuclear technologies that might be useful; these are mired in politics.
Other than science fiction, there is no known technology that could take humans beyond the solar system.
$endgroup$
The problem isn't so much that humans cannot sustain high G forces for any extended length of time: The problem is that rockets cannot. If a rocket could sustain 1 g acceleration for a bit over a day, we could go to Mars in a bit over a day. It instead takes several months to get to Mars because the rockets used to get there only fire for a few minutes. The spacecraft then coasts all the way to Mars. Just a few hundredths of a g of sustained acceleration would cut the trip time to Mars down to a week or so.
The chemical engines currently used to propel spacecraft on interplanetary trajectories coupled with the tyranny of the rocket equation are the key reasons rocket cannot sustain high accelerations for an extended length of time. There are some promising low thrust / high efficiency (high specific impulse) technologies such as ion thrusters that might help humans get beyond the Moon. Ion thrusters are in use now, but none are quite ready for prime time when it comes to human spaceflight. There are some promising high thrust / somewhat high specific impulse nuclear technologies that might be useful; these are mired in politics.
Other than science fiction, there is no known technology that could take humans beyond the solar system.
edited yesterday
answered yesterday
David HammenDavid Hammen
31.9k175139
31.9k175139
11
$begingroup$
I disagree with your last sentence we have the tech to get humans beyond the solar system. Getting there and back in a single human life time would be a totally different question/answer. +1 for the rest of the answer though
$endgroup$
– James Jenkins
yesterday
4
$begingroup$
@davek Your max speed is lightspeed, though as we near it the energy required to accelerate further steadily climbs - So your basic premise is sound but isn't relevant until we're working in very large fractions of C - or never an issue at all, with present technology.
$endgroup$
– Saiboogu
yesterday
7
$begingroup$
@davek you stop accelerating in a plane because the drag from air resistance is equal and opposite to the thrust from the engines at some speed, since there's no air in space there's basically nothing to stop you accelerating more until you get close the speed of light and relativistic effects become significant
$endgroup$
– llama
yesterday
2
$begingroup$
Getting into orbit would be a fair bit more efficient with higher accelerations -- as a rough estimate, each second you spend accelerating toward orbital velocity costs you 10 m/s in gravity drag.
$endgroup$
– Mark
yesterday
4
$begingroup$
@davek The source must be making some assumption about the amount of reaction mass you are able or willing to start with. An ion engine is, in fact, a rocket like any other, just one with a very high exhaust velocity. Accelerating to to 90 km/s with current ion drives would involve about 90% of the starting mass of the spaceship being reaction mass, but if you could somehow manage to start with 99% reaction mass, you could achieve 180 km/s.
$endgroup$
– Steve Linton
6 hours ago
|
show 14 more comments
11
$begingroup$
I disagree with your last sentence we have the tech to get humans beyond the solar system. Getting there and back in a single human life time would be a totally different question/answer. +1 for the rest of the answer though
$endgroup$
– James Jenkins
yesterday
4
$begingroup$
@davek Your max speed is lightspeed, though as we near it the energy required to accelerate further steadily climbs - So your basic premise is sound but isn't relevant until we're working in very large fractions of C - or never an issue at all, with present technology.
$endgroup$
– Saiboogu
yesterday
7
$begingroup$
@davek you stop accelerating in a plane because the drag from air resistance is equal and opposite to the thrust from the engines at some speed, since there's no air in space there's basically nothing to stop you accelerating more until you get close the speed of light and relativistic effects become significant
$endgroup$
– llama
yesterday
2
$begingroup$
Getting into orbit would be a fair bit more efficient with higher accelerations -- as a rough estimate, each second you spend accelerating toward orbital velocity costs you 10 m/s in gravity drag.
$endgroup$
– Mark
yesterday
4
$begingroup$
@davek The source must be making some assumption about the amount of reaction mass you are able or willing to start with. An ion engine is, in fact, a rocket like any other, just one with a very high exhaust velocity. Accelerating to to 90 km/s with current ion drives would involve about 90% of the starting mass of the spaceship being reaction mass, but if you could somehow manage to start with 99% reaction mass, you could achieve 180 km/s.
$endgroup$
– Steve Linton
6 hours ago
11
11
$begingroup$
I disagree with your last sentence we have the tech to get humans beyond the solar system. Getting there and back in a single human life time would be a totally different question/answer. +1 for the rest of the answer though
$endgroup$
– James Jenkins
yesterday
$begingroup$
I disagree with your last sentence we have the tech to get humans beyond the solar system. Getting there and back in a single human life time would be a totally different question/answer. +1 for the rest of the answer though
$endgroup$
– James Jenkins
yesterday
4
4
$begingroup$
@davek Your max speed is lightspeed, though as we near it the energy required to accelerate further steadily climbs - So your basic premise is sound but isn't relevant until we're working in very large fractions of C - or never an issue at all, with present technology.
$endgroup$
– Saiboogu
yesterday
$begingroup$
@davek Your max speed is lightspeed, though as we near it the energy required to accelerate further steadily climbs - So your basic premise is sound but isn't relevant until we're working in very large fractions of C - or never an issue at all, with present technology.
$endgroup$
– Saiboogu
yesterday
7
7
$begingroup$
@davek you stop accelerating in a plane because the drag from air resistance is equal and opposite to the thrust from the engines at some speed, since there's no air in space there's basically nothing to stop you accelerating more until you get close the speed of light and relativistic effects become significant
$endgroup$
– llama
yesterday
$begingroup$
@davek you stop accelerating in a plane because the drag from air resistance is equal and opposite to the thrust from the engines at some speed, since there's no air in space there's basically nothing to stop you accelerating more until you get close the speed of light and relativistic effects become significant
$endgroup$
– llama
yesterday
2
2
$begingroup$
Getting into orbit would be a fair bit more efficient with higher accelerations -- as a rough estimate, each second you spend accelerating toward orbital velocity costs you 10 m/s in gravity drag.
$endgroup$
– Mark
yesterday
$begingroup$
Getting into orbit would be a fair bit more efficient with higher accelerations -- as a rough estimate, each second you spend accelerating toward orbital velocity costs you 10 m/s in gravity drag.
$endgroup$
– Mark
yesterday
4
4
$begingroup$
@davek The source must be making some assumption about the amount of reaction mass you are able or willing to start with. An ion engine is, in fact, a rocket like any other, just one with a very high exhaust velocity. Accelerating to to 90 km/s with current ion drives would involve about 90% of the starting mass of the spaceship being reaction mass, but if you could somehow manage to start with 99% reaction mass, you could achieve 180 km/s.
$endgroup$
– Steve Linton
6 hours ago
$begingroup$
@davek The source must be making some assumption about the amount of reaction mass you are able or willing to start with. An ion engine is, in fact, a rocket like any other, just one with a very high exhaust velocity. Accelerating to to 90 km/s with current ion drives would involve about 90% of the starting mass of the spaceship being reaction mass, but if you could somehow manage to start with 99% reaction mass, you could achieve 180 km/s.
$endgroup$
– Steve Linton
6 hours ago
|
show 14 more comments
$begingroup$
Ignoring the major point that human tolerance of G forces is not the limiting factor on space travel, plenty of thought has been made on how to counteract G forces, not least by 60's scifi writers.
You can find more information than you ever wanted at Projectrho on this topic.
The general gist: for lowish accelerations like 2 G, you don't need to do anything special to the human body, just make sure you're lying either prone or on your back, and remaining disciplined about your breathing.
For higher Gs, like 5G+, you need to carefully manage the human body, putting it in a gel-like coccoon of similar density, and substituting air for a breathable liquid. Any differences in density can result in the denser parts of the body tending to 'settle' towards the back of the ship, and so must be avoided where possible.
Of course, such measures to counteract G forces can only ever be necessary with the use of nuclear or antimatter propellant. Chemical propellants do not burn for long enough to require such measures.
$endgroup$
6
$begingroup$
Best answer. This actually addresses the question, flawed as its premise is.
$endgroup$
– user45266
21 hours ago
1
$begingroup$
In fiction, balance with gravity from mass you carry along, like the classic 'sailboat carrying its own fan' -- scifi.sx or tvtropes (warning! warning!) at 'Inertial Dampening'. (And in another McAndrew/Roker story, Sheffield also has the solution to propelling this monster -- self-energy of interstellar vacuum. Sure.)
$endgroup$
– dave_thompson_085
20 hours ago
$begingroup$
Just install reactionless thrusters. Lots of SciFi spaceships have them. :-)
$endgroup$
– Carl Witthoft
9 hours ago
2
$begingroup$
He was exposed to those G forces briefly. The question is about longer duration G-forces. 30G is definitely not survivable over the period of a day.
$endgroup$
– Ingolifs
5 hours ago
1
$begingroup$
Going past the 60's...Most modern SciFi seems to admit G-dampening/G-compensators/G-Generators are A Thing in spaceflight, but don't go into any details about how they do it.
$endgroup$
– T.E.D.
4 hours ago
|
show 1 more comment
$begingroup$
Ignoring the major point that human tolerance of G forces is not the limiting factor on space travel, plenty of thought has been made on how to counteract G forces, not least by 60's scifi writers.
You can find more information than you ever wanted at Projectrho on this topic.
The general gist: for lowish accelerations like 2 G, you don't need to do anything special to the human body, just make sure you're lying either prone or on your back, and remaining disciplined about your breathing.
For higher Gs, like 5G+, you need to carefully manage the human body, putting it in a gel-like coccoon of similar density, and substituting air for a breathable liquid. Any differences in density can result in the denser parts of the body tending to 'settle' towards the back of the ship, and so must be avoided where possible.
Of course, such measures to counteract G forces can only ever be necessary with the use of nuclear or antimatter propellant. Chemical propellants do not burn for long enough to require such measures.
$endgroup$
6
$begingroup$
Best answer. This actually addresses the question, flawed as its premise is.
$endgroup$
– user45266
21 hours ago
1
$begingroup$
In fiction, balance with gravity from mass you carry along, like the classic 'sailboat carrying its own fan' -- scifi.sx or tvtropes (warning! warning!) at 'Inertial Dampening'. (And in another McAndrew/Roker story, Sheffield also has the solution to propelling this monster -- self-energy of interstellar vacuum. Sure.)
$endgroup$
– dave_thompson_085
20 hours ago
$begingroup$
Just install reactionless thrusters. Lots of SciFi spaceships have them. :-)
$endgroup$
– Carl Witthoft
9 hours ago
2
$begingroup$
He was exposed to those G forces briefly. The question is about longer duration G-forces. 30G is definitely not survivable over the period of a day.
$endgroup$
– Ingolifs
5 hours ago
1
$begingroup$
Going past the 60's...Most modern SciFi seems to admit G-dampening/G-compensators/G-Generators are A Thing in spaceflight, but don't go into any details about how they do it.
$endgroup$
– T.E.D.
4 hours ago
|
show 1 more comment
$begingroup$
Ignoring the major point that human tolerance of G forces is not the limiting factor on space travel, plenty of thought has been made on how to counteract G forces, not least by 60's scifi writers.
You can find more information than you ever wanted at Projectrho on this topic.
The general gist: for lowish accelerations like 2 G, you don't need to do anything special to the human body, just make sure you're lying either prone or on your back, and remaining disciplined about your breathing.
For higher Gs, like 5G+, you need to carefully manage the human body, putting it in a gel-like coccoon of similar density, and substituting air for a breathable liquid. Any differences in density can result in the denser parts of the body tending to 'settle' towards the back of the ship, and so must be avoided where possible.
Of course, such measures to counteract G forces can only ever be necessary with the use of nuclear or antimatter propellant. Chemical propellants do not burn for long enough to require such measures.
$endgroup$
Ignoring the major point that human tolerance of G forces is not the limiting factor on space travel, plenty of thought has been made on how to counteract G forces, not least by 60's scifi writers.
You can find more information than you ever wanted at Projectrho on this topic.
The general gist: for lowish accelerations like 2 G, you don't need to do anything special to the human body, just make sure you're lying either prone or on your back, and remaining disciplined about your breathing.
For higher Gs, like 5G+, you need to carefully manage the human body, putting it in a gel-like coccoon of similar density, and substituting air for a breathable liquid. Any differences in density can result in the denser parts of the body tending to 'settle' towards the back of the ship, and so must be avoided where possible.
Of course, such measures to counteract G forces can only ever be necessary with the use of nuclear or antimatter propellant. Chemical propellants do not burn for long enough to require such measures.
answered yesterday
IngolifsIngolifs
2,086726
2,086726
6
$begingroup$
Best answer. This actually addresses the question, flawed as its premise is.
$endgroup$
– user45266
21 hours ago
1
$begingroup$
In fiction, balance with gravity from mass you carry along, like the classic 'sailboat carrying its own fan' -- scifi.sx or tvtropes (warning! warning!) at 'Inertial Dampening'. (And in another McAndrew/Roker story, Sheffield also has the solution to propelling this monster -- self-energy of interstellar vacuum. Sure.)
$endgroup$
– dave_thompson_085
20 hours ago
$begingroup$
Just install reactionless thrusters. Lots of SciFi spaceships have them. :-)
$endgroup$
– Carl Witthoft
9 hours ago
2
$begingroup$
He was exposed to those G forces briefly. The question is about longer duration G-forces. 30G is definitely not survivable over the period of a day.
$endgroup$
– Ingolifs
5 hours ago
1
$begingroup$
Going past the 60's...Most modern SciFi seems to admit G-dampening/G-compensators/G-Generators are A Thing in spaceflight, but don't go into any details about how they do it.
$endgroup$
– T.E.D.
4 hours ago
|
show 1 more comment
6
$begingroup$
Best answer. This actually addresses the question, flawed as its premise is.
$endgroup$
– user45266
21 hours ago
1
$begingroup$
In fiction, balance with gravity from mass you carry along, like the classic 'sailboat carrying its own fan' -- scifi.sx or tvtropes (warning! warning!) at 'Inertial Dampening'. (And in another McAndrew/Roker story, Sheffield also has the solution to propelling this monster -- self-energy of interstellar vacuum. Sure.)
$endgroup$
– dave_thompson_085
20 hours ago
$begingroup$
Just install reactionless thrusters. Lots of SciFi spaceships have them. :-)
$endgroup$
– Carl Witthoft
9 hours ago
2
$begingroup$
He was exposed to those G forces briefly. The question is about longer duration G-forces. 30G is definitely not survivable over the period of a day.
$endgroup$
– Ingolifs
5 hours ago
1
$begingroup$
Going past the 60's...Most modern SciFi seems to admit G-dampening/G-compensators/G-Generators are A Thing in spaceflight, but don't go into any details about how they do it.
$endgroup$
– T.E.D.
4 hours ago
6
6
$begingroup$
Best answer. This actually addresses the question, flawed as its premise is.
$endgroup$
– user45266
21 hours ago
$begingroup$
Best answer. This actually addresses the question, flawed as its premise is.
$endgroup$
– user45266
21 hours ago
1
1
$begingroup$
In fiction, balance with gravity from mass you carry along, like the classic 'sailboat carrying its own fan' -- scifi.sx or tvtropes (warning! warning!) at 'Inertial Dampening'. (And in another McAndrew/Roker story, Sheffield also has the solution to propelling this monster -- self-energy of interstellar vacuum. Sure.)
$endgroup$
– dave_thompson_085
20 hours ago
$begingroup$
In fiction, balance with gravity from mass you carry along, like the classic 'sailboat carrying its own fan' -- scifi.sx or tvtropes (warning! warning!) at 'Inertial Dampening'. (And in another McAndrew/Roker story, Sheffield also has the solution to propelling this monster -- self-energy of interstellar vacuum. Sure.)
$endgroup$
– dave_thompson_085
20 hours ago
$begingroup$
Just install reactionless thrusters. Lots of SciFi spaceships have them. :-)
$endgroup$
– Carl Witthoft
9 hours ago
$begingroup$
Just install reactionless thrusters. Lots of SciFi spaceships have them. :-)
$endgroup$
– Carl Witthoft
9 hours ago
2
2
$begingroup$
He was exposed to those G forces briefly. The question is about longer duration G-forces. 30G is definitely not survivable over the period of a day.
$endgroup$
– Ingolifs
5 hours ago
$begingroup$
He was exposed to those G forces briefly. The question is about longer duration G-forces. 30G is definitely not survivable over the period of a day.
$endgroup$
– Ingolifs
5 hours ago
1
1
$begingroup$
Going past the 60's...Most modern SciFi seems to admit G-dampening/G-compensators/G-Generators are A Thing in spaceflight, but don't go into any details about how they do it.
$endgroup$
– T.E.D.
4 hours ago
$begingroup$
Going past the 60's...Most modern SciFi seems to admit G-dampening/G-compensators/G-Generators are A Thing in spaceflight, but don't go into any details about how they do it.
$endgroup$
– T.E.D.
4 hours ago
|
show 1 more comment
$begingroup$
This is way beyond foreseeable economic possibilities, but the physics is sound:
Gravity is a surefire, scalable, elegant way to counteract G forces from acceleration.
A planet-sized spaceship with its own gravitational pull of 5 Gs could accelerate at 4 Gs, people living towards its tail would only experience the difference, one G.
(note that I'm talking about a ship roughly 5 times the mass of Earth, minus density differences)
The same is true for a ship with 100 Gs accelerating at 99 Gs.
$endgroup$
1
$begingroup$
Of course, then you have the problem of high-G loads when you stop accelerating. And you probably want to decelerate once you arrive at your destination, which is even worse for our hapless passengers.
$endgroup$
– chepner
6 hours ago
$begingroup$
@chepner Put them on the orbit of their planet-ship, then cut off the acceleration. They'll be in microgravity.
$endgroup$
– kubanczyk
5 hours ago
$begingroup$
Why not just be in orbit the entire time? Then you don't need a larger planet, or have the acceleration tied to the gravitational pull of the planet.
$endgroup$
– chepner
5 hours ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
This is way beyond foreseeable economic possibilities, but the physics is sound:
Gravity is a surefire, scalable, elegant way to counteract G forces from acceleration.
A planet-sized spaceship with its own gravitational pull of 5 Gs could accelerate at 4 Gs, people living towards its tail would only experience the difference, one G.
(note that I'm talking about a ship roughly 5 times the mass of Earth, minus density differences)
The same is true for a ship with 100 Gs accelerating at 99 Gs.
$endgroup$
1
$begingroup$
Of course, then you have the problem of high-G loads when you stop accelerating. And you probably want to decelerate once you arrive at your destination, which is even worse for our hapless passengers.
$endgroup$
– chepner
6 hours ago
$begingroup$
@chepner Put them on the orbit of their planet-ship, then cut off the acceleration. They'll be in microgravity.
$endgroup$
– kubanczyk
5 hours ago
$begingroup$
Why not just be in orbit the entire time? Then you don't need a larger planet, or have the acceleration tied to the gravitational pull of the planet.
$endgroup$
– chepner
5 hours ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
This is way beyond foreseeable economic possibilities, but the physics is sound:
Gravity is a surefire, scalable, elegant way to counteract G forces from acceleration.
A planet-sized spaceship with its own gravitational pull of 5 Gs could accelerate at 4 Gs, people living towards its tail would only experience the difference, one G.
(note that I'm talking about a ship roughly 5 times the mass of Earth, minus density differences)
The same is true for a ship with 100 Gs accelerating at 99 Gs.
$endgroup$
This is way beyond foreseeable economic possibilities, but the physics is sound:
Gravity is a surefire, scalable, elegant way to counteract G forces from acceleration.
A planet-sized spaceship with its own gravitational pull of 5 Gs could accelerate at 4 Gs, people living towards its tail would only experience the difference, one G.
(note that I'm talking about a ship roughly 5 times the mass of Earth, minus density differences)
The same is true for a ship with 100 Gs accelerating at 99 Gs.
answered 7 hours ago
Emilio M BumacharEmilio M Bumachar
5051410
5051410
1
$begingroup$
Of course, then you have the problem of high-G loads when you stop accelerating. And you probably want to decelerate once you arrive at your destination, which is even worse for our hapless passengers.
$endgroup$
– chepner
6 hours ago
$begingroup$
@chepner Put them on the orbit of their planet-ship, then cut off the acceleration. They'll be in microgravity.
$endgroup$
– kubanczyk
5 hours ago
$begingroup$
Why not just be in orbit the entire time? Then you don't need a larger planet, or have the acceleration tied to the gravitational pull of the planet.
$endgroup$
– chepner
5 hours ago
add a comment |
1
$begingroup$
Of course, then you have the problem of high-G loads when you stop accelerating. And you probably want to decelerate once you arrive at your destination, which is even worse for our hapless passengers.
$endgroup$
– chepner
6 hours ago
$begingroup$
@chepner Put them on the orbit of their planet-ship, then cut off the acceleration. They'll be in microgravity.
$endgroup$
– kubanczyk
5 hours ago
$begingroup$
Why not just be in orbit the entire time? Then you don't need a larger planet, or have the acceleration tied to the gravitational pull of the planet.
$endgroup$
– chepner
5 hours ago
1
1
$begingroup$
Of course, then you have the problem of high-G loads when you stop accelerating. And you probably want to decelerate once you arrive at your destination, which is even worse for our hapless passengers.
$endgroup$
– chepner
6 hours ago
$begingroup$
Of course, then you have the problem of high-G loads when you stop accelerating. And you probably want to decelerate once you arrive at your destination, which is even worse for our hapless passengers.
$endgroup$
– chepner
6 hours ago
$begingroup$
@chepner Put them on the orbit of their planet-ship, then cut off the acceleration. They'll be in microgravity.
$endgroup$
– kubanczyk
5 hours ago
$begingroup$
@chepner Put them on the orbit of their planet-ship, then cut off the acceleration. They'll be in microgravity.
$endgroup$
– kubanczyk
5 hours ago
$begingroup$
Why not just be in orbit the entire time? Then you don't need a larger planet, or have the acceleration tied to the gravitational pull of the planet.
$endgroup$
– chepner
5 hours ago
$begingroup$
Why not just be in orbit the entire time? Then you don't need a larger planet, or have the acceleration tied to the gravitational pull of the planet.
$endgroup$
– chepner
5 hours ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
G Force is a function of acceleration.
Gravity works on a mass to pull it toward another mass. Large masses have higher levels of gravitational attraction. The force of gravity on Jupiter and Saturn is stronger thatn that on earth. The moon less than on earth.
On earth gravity is a force that continues to pulls us down toward the center of the earth. The physical surface stops that acceleration. Our weight is the measure of that force acting on our mass.
Acceleration is a change in speed. When coasting (no acceleration nor deceleration forces) then there is no g-load (weightlessness in space).
Accelerating in a car, plane or spaceship causes G-Loads. Again, it is the acceleration that is causing the load. Banking an airplane in a 60 degree bank will cause g-loads on the body due to centripetal force. Looping and airplane will do the same. An inside look causes positive g-load while and outside loop causes negative g-load. Both are measured by effect on the body. When upright, positive g-loads causing blood to flow out of the head toward the feet and negative g-loads causing blood to flow from feet to head. human bodies tolerate positive g-loads better than negative. Lying down, like in many fighter jets help mitigate the impacts as more of the body is level.
So toleration of space travel is a combination of tolerating g-loads during accelerating and deceleration phases and weightlessness (absence of acceleration) periods which tend to affect muscles, bone densities, etc.
New contributor
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
G force isn't a function of acceleration. it is acceleration.
$endgroup$
– Ingolifs
1 hour ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
G Force is a function of acceleration.
Gravity works on a mass to pull it toward another mass. Large masses have higher levels of gravitational attraction. The force of gravity on Jupiter and Saturn is stronger thatn that on earth. The moon less than on earth.
On earth gravity is a force that continues to pulls us down toward the center of the earth. The physical surface stops that acceleration. Our weight is the measure of that force acting on our mass.
Acceleration is a change in speed. When coasting (no acceleration nor deceleration forces) then there is no g-load (weightlessness in space).
Accelerating in a car, plane or spaceship causes G-Loads. Again, it is the acceleration that is causing the load. Banking an airplane in a 60 degree bank will cause g-loads on the body due to centripetal force. Looping and airplane will do the same. An inside look causes positive g-load while and outside loop causes negative g-load. Both are measured by effect on the body. When upright, positive g-loads causing blood to flow out of the head toward the feet and negative g-loads causing blood to flow from feet to head. human bodies tolerate positive g-loads better than negative. Lying down, like in many fighter jets help mitigate the impacts as more of the body is level.
So toleration of space travel is a combination of tolerating g-loads during accelerating and deceleration phases and weightlessness (absence of acceleration) periods which tend to affect muscles, bone densities, etc.
New contributor
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
G force isn't a function of acceleration. it is acceleration.
$endgroup$
– Ingolifs
1 hour ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
G Force is a function of acceleration.
Gravity works on a mass to pull it toward another mass. Large masses have higher levels of gravitational attraction. The force of gravity on Jupiter and Saturn is stronger thatn that on earth. The moon less than on earth.
On earth gravity is a force that continues to pulls us down toward the center of the earth. The physical surface stops that acceleration. Our weight is the measure of that force acting on our mass.
Acceleration is a change in speed. When coasting (no acceleration nor deceleration forces) then there is no g-load (weightlessness in space).
Accelerating in a car, plane or spaceship causes G-Loads. Again, it is the acceleration that is causing the load. Banking an airplane in a 60 degree bank will cause g-loads on the body due to centripetal force. Looping and airplane will do the same. An inside look causes positive g-load while and outside loop causes negative g-load. Both are measured by effect on the body. When upright, positive g-loads causing blood to flow out of the head toward the feet and negative g-loads causing blood to flow from feet to head. human bodies tolerate positive g-loads better than negative. Lying down, like in many fighter jets help mitigate the impacts as more of the body is level.
So toleration of space travel is a combination of tolerating g-loads during accelerating and deceleration phases and weightlessness (absence of acceleration) periods which tend to affect muscles, bone densities, etc.
New contributor
$endgroup$
G Force is a function of acceleration.
Gravity works on a mass to pull it toward another mass. Large masses have higher levels of gravitational attraction. The force of gravity on Jupiter and Saturn is stronger thatn that on earth. The moon less than on earth.
On earth gravity is a force that continues to pulls us down toward the center of the earth. The physical surface stops that acceleration. Our weight is the measure of that force acting on our mass.
Acceleration is a change in speed. When coasting (no acceleration nor deceleration forces) then there is no g-load (weightlessness in space).
Accelerating in a car, plane or spaceship causes G-Loads. Again, it is the acceleration that is causing the load. Banking an airplane in a 60 degree bank will cause g-loads on the body due to centripetal force. Looping and airplane will do the same. An inside look causes positive g-load while and outside loop causes negative g-load. Both are measured by effect on the body. When upright, positive g-loads causing blood to flow out of the head toward the feet and negative g-loads causing blood to flow from feet to head. human bodies tolerate positive g-loads better than negative. Lying down, like in many fighter jets help mitigate the impacts as more of the body is level.
So toleration of space travel is a combination of tolerating g-loads during accelerating and deceleration phases and weightlessness (absence of acceleration) periods which tend to affect muscles, bone densities, etc.
New contributor
New contributor
answered 4 hours ago
SteveSteve
1
1
New contributor
New contributor
$begingroup$
G force isn't a function of acceleration. it is acceleration.
$endgroup$
– Ingolifs
1 hour ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
G force isn't a function of acceleration. it is acceleration.
$endgroup$
– Ingolifs
1 hour ago
$begingroup$
G force isn't a function of acceleration. it is acceleration.
$endgroup$
– Ingolifs
1 hour ago
$begingroup$
G force isn't a function of acceleration. it is acceleration.
$endgroup$
– Ingolifs
1 hour ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Yes, rotating high intensity magnetic fields at specific frequency. It's how "so called" UFO's counter the effects of inertia on the interior.
The particles that form you and the "so called" atoms of the interior space surrounding you in the craft - can all be manipulated in a phase-lock spin/rotation that changes the physical property you know as "density" to a constant value - so there is nothing to compress or expand at the molecule level. Shhh...
New contributor
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
I think you may have confused this site with the Worldbuilding Stack Exchange...
$endgroup$
– duskwuff
13 mins ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Yes, rotating high intensity magnetic fields at specific frequency. It's how "so called" UFO's counter the effects of inertia on the interior.
The particles that form you and the "so called" atoms of the interior space surrounding you in the craft - can all be manipulated in a phase-lock spin/rotation that changes the physical property you know as "density" to a constant value - so there is nothing to compress or expand at the molecule level. Shhh...
New contributor
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
I think you may have confused this site with the Worldbuilding Stack Exchange...
$endgroup$
– duskwuff
13 mins ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Yes, rotating high intensity magnetic fields at specific frequency. It's how "so called" UFO's counter the effects of inertia on the interior.
The particles that form you and the "so called" atoms of the interior space surrounding you in the craft - can all be manipulated in a phase-lock spin/rotation that changes the physical property you know as "density" to a constant value - so there is nothing to compress or expand at the molecule level. Shhh...
New contributor
$endgroup$
Yes, rotating high intensity magnetic fields at specific frequency. It's how "so called" UFO's counter the effects of inertia on the interior.
The particles that form you and the "so called" atoms of the interior space surrounding you in the craft - can all be manipulated in a phase-lock spin/rotation that changes the physical property you know as "density" to a constant value - so there is nothing to compress or expand at the molecule level. Shhh...
New contributor
edited 20 mins ago
New contributor
answered 55 mins ago
iq160iq160
11
11
New contributor
New contributor
$begingroup$
I think you may have confused this site with the Worldbuilding Stack Exchange...
$endgroup$
– duskwuff
13 mins ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
I think you may have confused this site with the Worldbuilding Stack Exchange...
$endgroup$
– duskwuff
13 mins ago
$begingroup$
I think you may have confused this site with the Worldbuilding Stack Exchange...
$endgroup$
– duskwuff
13 mins ago
$begingroup$
I think you may have confused this site with the Worldbuilding Stack Exchange...
$endgroup$
– duskwuff
13 mins ago
add a comment |
Daaood is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
Daaood is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
Daaood is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
Daaood is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
Thanks for contributing an answer to Space Exploration Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fspace.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f35256%2fif-human-space-travel-is-limited-by-the-g-force-vulnerability-is-there-a-way-to%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
16
$begingroup$
The first part of that may be true (that sustained G forces kill you) although this would be a better question if you could give your source. On the other hand current rockets are only able to sustain that kind of acceleration for a few minutes, so it's not really a problem. The scope of possible space travel would massively increase if we could sustain 1G for hours or days (or even years) and only once that is achieved would there be much point in looking at the problems with sustaining 2Gs.
$endgroup$
– Steve Linton
yesterday
17
$begingroup$
What Steve said. Human space travel is not limited by G force vulnerability, except during launch and landing. But once you are out of the atmosphere, fuel is so precious that we use the most gentle, efficient accelerations that will work, and even those accelerations are only momentary.
$endgroup$
– Wayne Conrad
yesterday
$begingroup$
Prolonged G forces, even 2 G or less could only produced in a centrifuge on Earth. Rockets in space are limited to a few minutes. There is no available technology for a duration of hours or days. But a constant 1 G accleration would not limit our ability to sustain space travel much more than 2 G. Both are pure science fiction today.
$endgroup$
– Uwe
yesterday
4
$begingroup$
See related How fast will 1g get you there?
$endgroup$
– James Jenkins
yesterday
1
$begingroup$
Roundtrip times at 1g, including subjective time for a relativistic traveller upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f5/Roundtriptimes.png
$endgroup$
– JollyJoker
15 hours ago