New answers tagged

1

I think the scientific side of this question has been covered: Smaller people can fit in smaller places, use fewer resources, and could be seen as less likely to get cancer from the extra radiation involved in space travel. I have thoughts on the cultural side. Take, for example, professional basketball players. They are more likely than the general ...


0

Smaller space suits have a lower material cost I don't know if this is the kind of universe you want to portray


4

Internet is full of calculators if one searches for them. From atomic bomb to asteroid impacts, people can calculate anything. Spinning worlds included. Here is just the first of the list I found by googling. For a 2.5 km radius you get an angular velocity of 0.59 revolution per minute. For a 1.5 km radius you get 0.77 rotation per minute.


3

Zero, since no light source has been specified, and those are pretty darn advanced. However, assuming earth-like lighting, we can leverage Biosphere 2 as our one data point, as it is the only real attempt at a sealed biome for humans. It was 3.14 acres and housed eight people. One of your tubes has roughly 750 acres of space (assuming you don't try to ...


64

Achondroplastic dwarves are resistant to osteosarcoma. Ionizing radiation is a problem for space travelers.* It is very difficult to block energetic particles and as the cumulative dose rises, the incidence of cancer rises with it. The most common radiation-induced cancer is sarcoma, and of these the most common is osteosarcoma.* In the recent past of ...


0

The need for space survival is only coincidental It's not that your passengers need to survive actual space, it's just that conditions inside an ftl ship are harsh in ways that are similar to being naked in space. One theoretical method of ftl travel is the alcubierre drive which has been theorized, if it could be built, would expose the passengers of the ...


0

A network of "gates" that scan content and only send living beings. You could use as your FTL system something analogous to the Stargate network: a series of devices at different locations, built using inscrutible technology by an advanced (extinct? ascended?) alien species, which can transport living beings to other devices in the network near-instaneously....


0

FTL travel requires entering a hyperspace-like state, in which, though lightspeed is still a limiting factor, distances between corresponding points are greatly reduced -- for instance, to reach Alpha Centauri from Sol via hyperspace may be a journey of only a few kilometers, easily managed in minutes with fairly basic methods. The catch is that, in ...


29

The primary advantage any little person would have in a space job is body mass -- they will weigh less than a full sized person. That means they cost less to move with reaction engines (and likely take less energy to "beam" from place to place, if you have that technology), they breathe less air for a given activity level, they eat and drink less, and ...


6

Money. Currently it costs about 2700 dollars/kg to launch something from Earth to low orbit, or 270,000 dollars for a 100 kg human. (Plus the cost of food & oxygen.) Then if you want to send that person elsewhere, say to the moon or Mars, you need to launch the fuel to accelerate them, the supplies to support them, the fuel to accelerate the supplies......


0

Just make an ice shield in front of the spaceship, in order to absorb impacts.


6

TL;DR: Pretty unlikely. The objects are small (and hence faint), there aren't very many of them (astronomically speaking) and they're moving very fast so there isn't much time to spot them. Even if you knew they were coming, it might be tricky to catch a glimpse of them with today's technology. Basically, it would depend more on luck than judgement. If a ...


0

Slap a basic impulser engine on it that pushes off the fabric of space-time. This means you don't need a propellant, and the only fuel you ever need is for the reactor or powerplant. The sci-fi "physics" principle behind an impulser is that it generates momentum with an equal and opposite ripple (wave) in space-time. Objects in the path of the wave will be ...


9

Assuming their metabolism isn't far higher than their size would suggest (it has to be higher than a human's, but they ought not to need more food, water, and oxygen than a house cat at that size), they'll find it much easier than we did. The first humans into orbit required multiple tonnes of life support and thermal protection equipment, equipment with ...


3

Around the same The key to reaching space is reaching escape velocity. That is the energy barrier, and once you get over it, you do need to add a bit more fuel for the person inside. We would send the equivalent weight of a human once we started sending things into space, having things a bit lighter won't help until you discover the right fuel, at which ...


1

You need two things: a way to land without a prepared (long, very smooth) runway, and a way to return to space without refueling. An antigravity (or reactionless) drive is the simplest way to manage both of these. Even if it uses a huge amount of power, as long as it scales up well enough to transport a fusion power plant, the ship can be as big as it ...


0

Well, starting right off with the spaceship part. How will we propel this ship without using much fuel? Simple (not really though). What is the universe full of? That's right, dark matter!. So this engine will be working by intaking and then expulsioning dark matter for propulsion. How do we attract dark matter? Gravity. I think that you could have a sort of ...


0

Depends on speed power etc... If your ship makes a slow controlled final descent of 30 minutes to an hour from outer atmosphere (to avoid heating up in the atmosphere) and assuming that the atmosphere does not alter the way it works, your passengers would gradually feel heavier or lighter (depending on what gravity inducing devices you have on this ship and ...


9

They could absolutely get to space. "Rocket science" isn't a complex field of science: it's just ballistics and some straightforward chemistry. What's fiendishly complex is the precision engineering and manufacturing required to go, not just into space, but where you mean to go with very little margin for error. What this means is that initially your ...


3

Relativity becomes significant for either very large masses or very high velocity. No big impact until they deploy the equivalent of our GPS satellite network, or start equipping satellites with very precise clocks. At that point they will notice that clocks on the ground and clocks high up in space will measure different times. But nothing dramatic ...


5

The severity of coriolis problems depends on the spin radius and radial speed. For many purposes, even a little gravity is a good thing. Food will stay on the plates and drinks will stay in the bottles at $1\ m/s^2$. So the answer is to find a "sweet spot" between excessive nausea and the physiological and practical problems of microgravity.


5

We don't know. The data we have are only for long stay in microgravity (days to months of astronauts, in particular those used to study the physiological impact of prolonged permanence in microgravity), or very short stay (the few seconds that the vomit comet can provide). As far as I know cycle of 8 hours gravity/16 hours microgravity have never been ...


Top 50 recent answers are included