Make space walkable

[hazarada]

On my new awesome spacecraft there is a deck for walking that goes around it. It occurred to me while in space that if I throttled up just enough to be accelerating at 1G, then I should be able to walk on it as if I was on kerbin. So I throttled up and went for an EVA but to my disappointment, as soon as I let go of the ladder, Bob just fell on his back and didn't get up. So right now, while in space and not using the rocket pack, the kerbals go into this useless mode where they can't do anything and won't even try. How about replacing that with attempting to walk on geometry if nearby? I need this for my interplanetary cruise ship!

[Greenfire32]

This wouldn't work as both the Kerbal and the ship would be traveling in the same direction at the same speed and as a result, the Kerbal would just "float" there.

"Artificial Gravity" (and I use that term loosely) comes from the forces generated by a spinning object, and not an object...going really fast.

That's why you always see these giant spinning wheel-like structures used for "habitat zones." It's the spinning that causes you to stick to the surface, not the velocity of the whole ship. And even then, "gravity" generated with spin is uni-directional. Walking to the right all the time? Gravity. Try to turn around and walk left? Now you're floating.

tl;dr

Going fast does not make gravity. Kerbals would need either magnetic boots or a "gravity generator" ship part.

[JimmyAgent007]

Clearly you have never put duct tape on your feet.

[bv1]

"Artificial Gravity" (and I use that term loosely) comes from the forces generated by a spinning object, and not an object...going really fast.

OP is talking about constant linear acceleration, which is indistinguishable from gravity as in Einstein's equivalence principle.

[WooDzor]

^^what he said

[zeel]

Both constant acceleration and spinning ships should be walkable. Kerbals should be smarter than they are now.

[arkie87]

This wouldn't work as both the Kerbal and the ship would be traveling in the same direction at the same speed and as a result, the Kerbal would just "float" there.

"Artificial Gravity" (and I use that term loosely) comes from the forces generated by a spinning object, and not an object...going really fast.

That's why you always see these giant spinning wheel-like structures used for "habitat zones." It's the spinning that causes you to stick to the surface, not the velocity of the whole ship. And even then, "gravity" generated with spin is uni-directional. Walking to the right all the time? Gravity. Try to turn around and walk left? Now you're floating.

tl;dr

Going fast does not make gravity. Kerbals would need either magnetic boots or a "gravity generator" ship part.

OP does not talk about "going really fast", but rather accelerating at 1g....

[Greenfire32]

OP is talking about constant linear acceleration, which is indistinguishable from gravity as in Einstein's equivalence principle.

OP does not talk about "going really fast", but rather accelerating at 1g....

Yep. I misread the OP. Disregard my above post.

[LABHOUSE]

There is a mod that fixes being able to walk on boats, may be it would work here.

[Whirligig Girl]

This wouldn't work as both the Kerbal and the ship would be traveling in the same direction at the same speed and as a result, the Kerbal would just "float" there.

"Artificial Gravity" (and I use that term loosely) comes from the forces generated by a spinning object, and not an object...going really fast.

That's why you always see these giant spinning wheel-like structures used for "habitat zones." It's the spinning that causes you to stick to the surface, not the velocity of the whole ship. And even then, "gravity" generated with spin is uni-directional. Walking to the right all the time? Gravity. Try to turn around and walk left? Now you're floating.

tl;dr

Going fast does not make gravity. Kerbals would need either magnetic boots or a "gravity generator" ship part.

He was talking about accelleration, which does create gravity. 1G accelleration of a ship is equal to Earth/kerbin gravity. And if the spin of a ring was faster than walking pace, you wouldn't freefall by going left.

[Greenfire32]

He was talking about accelleration, which does create gravity. 1G accelleration of a ship is equal to Earth/kerbin gravity. And if the spin of a ring was faster than walking pace, you wouldn't freefall by going left.

Look 2 posts above yours. Already closed that book. But since we're going there, here's a video illustrating exactly what I described above. "Gravity" generated with centrifugal force (spinning ring) is uni-directional. It works so long as you limit travel to one direction and falls apart when you go the opposite direction (ie: going right=gravity, going left=no gravity).

Either skip to 3:45 or click the link for the quick and dirty.

Now, again, regarding the OP: I misread it and have acknowledged that. A constant increase in velocity (acceleration) would indeed result in an artificial "gravity" of sorts. I misread that as "accelerating to 1g's worth of speed and maintaining that speed" which is why I posted what I did in the first place.

[arkie87]

Look 2 posts above yours. Already closed that book. But since we're going there, here's a video illustrating exactly what I described above. "Gravity" generated with centrifugal force (spinning ring) is uni-directional. It works so long as you limit travel to one direction and falls apart when you go the opposite direction (ie: going right=gravity, going left=no gravity).

Either skip to 3:45 or click the link for the quick and dirty.

Now, again, regarding the OP: I misread it and have acknowledged that. A constant increase in velocity (acceleration) would indeed result in an artificial "gravity" of sorts. I misread that as "accelerating to 1g's worth of speed and maintaining that speed" which is why I posted what I did in the first place.

Thats a cool video.

And yeah, i think we've all been there that we read something quickly, ended up misinterpreting it or reading it wrong, and then writing a long rant about it, be corrected immediately after by 5 people, then admit we are wrong, only to have people 100 pages later continue to correct us

[Greenfire32]

Thats a cool video.

And yeah, i think we've all been there that we read something quickly, ended up misinterpreting it or reading it wrong, and then writing a long rant about it, be corrected immediately after by 5 people, then admit we are wrong, only to have people 100 pages later continue to correct us

Such is the life I guess XD

[zekes]

But i don't think the rings work in KSP - it's too confusing for the game engine, the kerball will just fall down, no? Has anyone tried it? My KSP experience says it shouldn't work, but i would love it if it did.

[TheShadow1138]

Look 2 posts above yours. Already closed that book. But since we're going there, here's a video illustrating exactly what I described above. "Gravity" generated with centrifugal force (spinning ring) is uni-directional. It works so long as you limit travel to one direction and falls apart when you go the opposite direction (ie: going right=gravity, going left=no gravity).

Either skip to 3:45 or click the link for the quick and dirty.

Now, again, regarding the OP: I misread it and have acknowledged that. A constant increase in velocity (acceleration) would indeed result in an artificial "gravity" of sorts. I misread that as "accelerating to 1g's worth of speed and maintaining that speed" which is why I posted what I did in the first place.

To say that artificial gravity is uni-directional as you demonstrate is not strictly accurate. The video does illustrate your point and it is clearly stated that driving in the ring is altering the angular velocity of the ring, and this is what is affecting the artificial gravity. Artificial gravity created through rotation works because the inertia of the bodies inside the rotating ship cause them to want to move in straight lines, but the hull of the ship keeps them from doing so by exerting a force on them that has both radial and tangential components. The radial component is the Centripetal acceleration, and for all intents and purposes, gravitational acceleration. Moving either left or right within the ship will change your tangential acceleration, and would cause some change to the ship's angular velocity, upon which the centripetal acceleration depends. However, in most real world applications the amount by which your walking within the ring would alter the ring's angular velocity would be relatively small, and likely cancelled out by whatever mechanism keeps the ring rotating. This would mean that you would be free to move in either the clockwise or counter-clockwise direction without affecting the gravity you experience. In doing so you would be affecting the tangential component of your acceleration, not the radial component, which is what causes you to experience a "gravitational" force. As I said, in the video it behaves as you say because the vehicle causes a change in the ring's angular velocity, which is the only factor that will affect the gravity you experience.

[Rolanvorxariat]

Centrifugal force, yeah.

[Wanderfound]

Since we're discussing rotational fake G...

The research coming out of the vestibular labs suggests that for a spinning habitat to be viable, it would need to be the size of a small town. Small rotating habitats generate coriolis forces in the inner ear, which are, in the memorable phrase of one paper I read, "explosively nauseogenic".

2001 got the physics right, but as is common in SF, they forgot about the biology.

[DeadMG]

Clearly, we should just add gravity generators to the game.