ThirdHorseman

I am trying to mod an existing part to give it docking port functionality. I am using the existing TR-2V Stack Decoupler model, scaling it up, and trying to use it as a docking ring to put on the end of a standard Structural Fuselage part. I thought I had the part.cfg file correct, but I'm not getting any docking functions in game. When checking the debug console I'm seeing a warning message "No node transform found with name dockingNode". I assume that is because the TR-2V model doesn't have a node named "dockingNode", correct? So the only way to fix this is to open the model in Blender, name a node, and then reconvert back to a MU model file? If that's the case then I'll just model my own docking ring, but I was hoping it was easier to just take an existing part and add the MODULE component in the part.cfg. Am I correct in my assessment? Thanks!

I misread your post. I assumed you were referring to an O'Neill cylinder that was an inflatable structure. Yes, something like your suggestion would be the best option for a spinning habitat. That depends on the size of the structure. For the structures you detail in your post, yes those could be assembled using existing materials without much problem. But the amount of research that has been done on human comfort in artificial gravity situations is spotty at best. If you choose one study, then your numbers are fine. But choose another study and you are now looking at radii in the range of tens of kilometers. Such a structure would not be so easily manufactured using existing materials. No, what I'm still yelling on about is why you want gravity at all. Could you build an orbital habitat right now, given existing materials and technologies, that spins in such a way to give the inhabitants 1G with a decent level of comfort (i.e. no vestibular illusions or nausea)? Maybe, depending on who you listen to. If you go by one study you would need a radius of almost 100km, which is probably not do-able with existing materials and technologies. If you go by another study you could build the same system with a radius of 22m, which is definately do-able. So without having accurate research on human comfort in artificial gravity then you can't really say how possible such a habitat is. And this issue goes beyond orbital habitats. There is every reason to believe that permanent inhabitants of lunar (and even Mars) bases will have the same type of physiological issues associated with living in microgravity. Someone on the Moon will only experience .16G...not much more than what they would have in microgravity. What are you going to do, spin your lunar base around to simulate gravity? Mars, only .39G, might offer the same complication. So again, why live in 1G? It has been shown beyond a doubt that humans can survive and live quite comfortably in low gravity environments, and they will have to if they ever plan on living in any habitat on any body other than Earth (asteroid, moon, etc). They can do so utilizing current medical technology, and further advances will only make it even easier. Low gravity offers many benefits, so why not take advantage of it?

Again, the big problem of using centripetal force as artificial gravity is that it isn't real gravity. Unless you are spinning really slowly and at a very large diameter then you have all kinds of issues. And unlike the issues involved with living in microgravity, these cannot be adapted to or alleviated with drugs or medical procedures. The best option would be inflatable habitats attached to the ends of long struts, which rotate like spokes on a wheel. But the lengths required are so long that the stresses on the structure become unmanageable without some new super light and super strong miracle material. Much better to just adapt human physiology to live in the new environment...

Yes, ideally you would have material already in space that you could use. But in the short term we'll have to send large quantities of raw materials (water, O2, metal, etc) into space. But these can be launched far cheaper than things like complex electronics or people, and we can settle for a higher failure rate when launching raw materials. But hopefully we would quickly be mining from asteroids and the moon and rely less on materials from Earth. A lot. Which is why we establish a permanent habitation in orbit so we don't have to keep shuttling people and expensive machines into space. If the vast majority of launches are just raw materials then we can accept a lower safety threshold and lower success rates, which can bring down costs.

It will never get that bad. Most of the bone loss is in the lower part of the body, and in addition you don't see total bone loss...you see a slow progression of bone loss until it eventually plateaus and the both reaches a new equilibrium. So you will never lose enough bone density to become as fragile as an egg shell, and if you intend to spend the rest of your life in microgravity you won't have any problems. If you intend to get back under gravity at some point then you will want to maintain some bone density, or at least start to rebuild it as your time for return approaches using either electrical muscle stimulation, additional dietary calcium, or drugs that are being tested to allow calcium retension. All these options are much easier than artificial gravity. While there have been some studies that show immune system deficiencies in microgravity: http://www.esa.int/Our_Activities/Human_Spaceflight/Research/Goldfinger http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/04/130422132504.htm http://www.space.com/4302-stresses-immune-organs.html But there is evidence that it is not actually microgravity that causes the immune issue. Tests of U.S. Army Rangers during intensive training exercises showed the same kind of response. So it's more likely that it is the fact that the endothelial cells are being stressed and were attempting to adapt to the new environment, and therefore couldn't respond as well to infection: "We saw what maybe one could guess in retrospect that you would see, which was that the immune system was involved in the stress of being a Ranger, and when we added these pathogens -- the virus, bacteria and toxin -- in separate experiments, they didn't respond to them. And we saw something very similar to that in space. The cells were probably preoccupied with the response to microgravity, and, therefore, when exposed to LPS, yes, there was a response, but it certainly wasn't comparable to what we were seeing on the ground." So these issues can be handled medically or simply allowing the body to adapt to microgravity. There have been no studies to show that this reduced immune response continues over long periods, and most likely the immune system would revert to normal function once the body adapted to the new environment. There have been many studies which show that organisms, including mammals, can develop normally in microgravity (http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3adoi/10.1371/journal.pone.0006753 is a good one): There are issues, or course. Attachment of the embryo to the uterine wall can be problematic. It's highly likely that permanent habitation in microgravity will require a shift from normal fetal incubation to ectogenesis, where IVF is performed and the resulting embryo is incubated in an external device where development can be more easily monitored. I'm a proponent of this method regardless of the environment, but it will be especially valuable in a microgravity habitat. But there is nothing stopping humans from procreating in microgravity. And I've never seen any study that shows the inner ear doesn't develop properly in microgravity. While 40% or so of people who go into space experience visuo-vestibular mismatch...space sickness...the issues go away after anywhere from a few days to a week. The body adapts to the new environment. This is completely false. We have the medical knowledge, and the available materials, to allow permanent habitation in microgravity right now. It will be a lot different than living on Earth, but the human body is remarkably well suited to adaptation. We can't keep bringing our Earth environment with us everywhere we go, it's too difficult and just burdens us with physical and psychological baggage. So while you suffer under the weight of 1G, I'll take my calcium supplements, zap my muscles, and float like a bird in my bubble habitat... Here is another good link that has lots of information on the physical issues with microgravity, and methods to counter them: http://chapters.marssociety.org/usa/oh/aero4.htm

Never heard about digestive issues. Any links? And the only circulatory system issues are fluid redistributions that cause your upper body to swell up a bit (only cosmetic) and can cause feelings of sinus congestion. Nothing serious at all. The only other big issue is the reports of visual impairment, again most likely due to changes in fluid distribution which causes pressure on the optic nerve and can lead to vision issues, similar to an existing condition called intracranial hypertension. This only seems to happen in a percentage of those who spent long amounts of time in space, so I wonder if there are underlying medical issues that exacerbate the problem (perhaps only in older people who are already starting to suffer macular degeneration?). There are ways to treat intracranial hypertension such as draining of the cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) by doing a lumbar puncture, as well as certain medications that can reduce production of CSF. More study on how microgravity affects human health are required, that is for sure. But I would rather concentrate our efforts on adapting our biology to fit the environment, using medications and new forms of treatment, rather than just lugging our old environment around with us...

Disuse osteoporosis and muscle atrophy are only an issue if you plan on returning to a gravity well. If you plan to live your entire life in space then these are not a concern. However, there are already plenty of ways to reduce and/or eliminate these issues. Electrical muscle stimulation is used all the time in physical therapy to prevent disuse muscle atrophy, and there have been several studies which have shown EMS can also prevent bone loss. http://www.medwirenews.com/news/article.aspx?k=39&id=77470 Rather than trying to spin a massive metal structure, or wrap yourself in bungee cords and trying to run on a treadmill, you just lay back in a chair for a little while every day and have yourself worked over. There is no reason why the system couldn't be tweaked to the point where it happens at night while you sleep. People are so caught up in trying to force the environment to conform to human needs. Why not force humans to conform to the environment? Come on, you really want to go all the way into space just to lug around your 80-90 kilos on your aching knees and spine, your heart straining to pump blood under the oppressive force of 1G? Wouldn't you rather drift around effortlessly, free from the fears of falling and breaking a hip? You can keep your 1G on the ground where it belongs...

I disagree with that. It takes a hell of a lot of work to get stuff into orbit, especially people. KSP teaches that more than anything! Much better to have facilities in orbit that can manufacture what you need using materials harvested from space sources (asteroids, moon regolith, etc). Or just launch raw materials into orbit, which have higher tolerances and thus can be launched cheaper and easier than delicate instruments and organics.

There are two big issues with large rotating structures like these: 1) Rotating structures require massive support systems to contain the stresses involved. They are going to require an enormous amount of material to construct, and for what? We assume we need artificial gravity, but I believe we can do without it. You go through all this work to get into space, to escape gravity, just to subject yourself to gravity? There are plenty of options to avoid the health ramifications, and the health and psychological benefits are huge. I say leave gravity for the land lubbers. 2) There have been plenty of studies to show that the artificial gravity generated by rotating structures is NOT as great as previously expected. Between the disorienting effects of the Coriolis forces and gravity gradients, you must have very low rotational period and very long diameters, which drastically increase the design requirements of the habitat. This link has some interesting information ARTIFICIAL GRAVITY I have been a huge proponent of Marshall Savage's ideas for many years. Everyone who has any interest in space should read The Millennial Project: Colonizing the Galaxy in Eight Easy Steps. While some of the ideas are outdated, or have been shown to include calculation errors, the overall ideas are great for inspiration. He proposes a massive bubble habitat with smaller bubble modules nested within, the entire thing shielded with a water shield that is used both as a radiation barrier and an environment for growing algae: Larger Image As for the why, space habitats are a stepping stone. It's way too hard to keep moving stuff up the gravity well, so by having manufacturing/processing facilities in high orbit it makes it much easier to move out into the solar system. As an aside, he also had great ideas for the terraforming of Mars (which he called "Elysium"). Smash a few large comets into the polar regions, which will release megatons of water vapor into the air to thicken up the atmosphere. Presto, new planet!

You're just not enjoying the proper fiction: While there is still a lot of eye-candy, there is plenty of attention to Newtonian physics. You'll notice ships spinning on their axis and firing opposite their direction of travel, spinning ship components to create gravity, mass drivers, rapid course corrections, etc. If you want to read some good hard military scifi then Weber's Honorverse is a good start.