More on a Mars mission

I didn't intend provoking a war of words with my aside about not being
relevant to Larry Niven's writings. Certainly I chose to comment on
this topic and there wasn't anything else recent in this NG that
caught my interest. Makes me wonder if the most interesting
discussions of Larry's work are Off Topic in some unrelated NewsGroup.
But if someone really wants something read and discussed by people
most interested in that subject, posting it in an appropriate NG seems
like a good idea ( even if it's not compulsory). Instead LV Poker
Player got me plus an extended and even more OT discussion about OT
discussions although I suppose people interested in SF are more likely
than not to have at least a passing interest in speculations about
space exploration and technologies so LV's not as far off topic as
some I've seen. I'm sorry I mentioned it, especially since I'm going
to continue discussing it!
As for the subject of designs of manned spacecraft, I still think
paired modules connected by cable(s) has some advantages over wheels
or cylinders such as: Crew module can be a very long way from axis of
rotation and have very low revolution rate. I've heard that rotations
less than several kilometres can cause inner ear problems ( from the
continuous movement of the tiny 'stones' that provide the sensations
of rotation in the ears) causing discomfit and worse. Sorry I can't
find the reference. It would avoid obvious curvature of floors and it
would replicate gravity more closely if the cable was very long .
There'd probably be less mass involved than a rigid wheel or cylinder,
particularly when considering the requirement for centrifugal
'gravity' - less structural strength requirements and thus less 'dead'
mass. I suppose cables could be replaced by a spoke-like lift tube and
the modules fashioned after sections of the more familiar wheel form
like in '2001', but lifts could as easily be built to grip a cable (
perhaps doubling as EVA pods) and cables have the advantage that they
can be extended or wound up or disconnected as required . As for the
form the modules might take, there'd be less constraints on the
actual shape and form of the modules than wheels or cylinders - eg
they might be built to operate as two independent space vehicles,
perhaps as a failsafe measure as well as for versatilty or be designed
to facilitate expansion with modular add-ons.
Ken

>From: wishdump

Snipping discussion of a spaceship built in two sections and connected by
cables, and rotating around each other.

I have mentioned before that multiple cables, each capable of holding the
system together independently, might be a good idea.

I tend to think a cylinder at each end might be appropriate. That way, when
these have been extended far enough, they can operate as independent
spaceships. Untile then, they operate together on those tethers.

I'm not nitpicky about the design, as long as it can be expanded later.

--
Ferengi rule of acquisition #192: Never cheat a Klingon...unless you're sure
you can get away with it.