https://www.intechopen.com/books/into-space-a-journey-of-how-humans-adapt-and-live-in-microgravity/spaceflight-immune-effects-and-nutritional-countermeasure

This is interesting to me.

I suspect, as a balance of realism and game pragmatism, I would:

1) Assume we can train up to be able to sustain up to 5 or 6 rpm or otherwise make it comfortable enough (activities, medications, maybe even some gene tampering)

2) Assume that 0.5 or 0.6 Gs is enough to give the Immune system and bone density more normal responses than microgravity

3) The spacers of the future may be gene modded/augmented/medicated to deal with a much higher degree of cosmic radiation over the long term (and medical processes may undo damage and gear might help protect)

4) Diets and regimes of drills will likely be a part of retraining your brain which is very plastic and re-adjustable. For those that frequently transition, more exercises but it may end up being similar to how someone on a regular keyboard vs. an ergo keyboard or regular keyboard vs. a Dvorak layout needs to retrain themselves, but after a time, the transition is seamless and no further adaptation work needs undertaken.

There is a nod to needing some reasonable values and it will influence ship design in a world without magic 'shields' to stop all cosmic rays and micrometeors and where Agrav does not magically solve the immune issues, bone density issues, wound healing issues, and do on.

I think that might be about the best 'middle ground'.

On Sun, Sep 27, 2020 at 2:29 PM <xxxxxx@gmail.com> wrote:
https://www.artificial-gravity.com/sw/SpinCalc/

This helps with calcs and it also explains issues.

Some linked material suggests that rpms of up to 10 could be okay with some repeated training motions to help the body (neural systems and one imagines the brain) to acclimate. 1-2 rpm is one study's answer (at least one study I mean).

On Sun, Sep 27, 2020 at 2:25 PM James Catchpole - jlcatchpole at googlemail.com (via tml list) <xxxxxx@simplelists.com> wrote:


On Sun, 27 Sep 2020 18:41 , <xxxxxx@gmail.com> wrote:
Thanks!

On Sun, Sep 27, 2020 at 7:27 AM James Catchpole - jlcatchpole at googlemail.com (via tml list) <xxxxxx@simplelists.com> wrote:
Hi,

The one major omission I noted on a read-through is any mention of coriolis sickness (the tendency of humans to feel disorientation and nausea in rotating environments).


We like to ignore that sort of issue for VR-enabled systems too (different issue where the eyes and the inner ear supply different info to the brain and you can really get messed up with any lengthy exposures *and it is worse the higher the visual fidelity*.

There must be some speed or other characteristic where this doesn't apply or we'd be sick all the time as Earth is translating and rotating every moment. Wonder what the boundary values for notable symptoms are....

It varies by individual, but IIRC, the threshold for most is between 1 and 2 rpm.


 
There is one minor error where they say 'gravity acts towards the centre of rotation', which, given that they have otherwise expressed it as 'out is down', I think is just badly worded.


Gravitation is not even a factor (except on some microscale) unless your habitat is... insanely large (say... small moon sized... or large Death Planet Roberts sized battle station...).

Indeed not, but given they were referring to it throughout as artificial gravity I was willing to give them a pass on that. I was more concerned with the wording which suggested the inverse vector to the actual experienced force.

 

I think it would probably work fine with CT or MT, the level of design detail is more like CT than MT though.

Well, it could probably be adapted. MT is different, but not as different as GT for instance or even TNE where many things about how we describe ships changed (I think for the better, but the failure to provide TNE versions of all the original standard models in the OTU in TNE formats was annoying. As was the lack of build guidance to translate systems that may have been left over from the CT time period.

Cepheus is basically derived from MgT1, which isn't that far removed from CT.


Thanks for the info (Jim and Tom R).

Hope that helps.

Cheers,
Jim


On Sun, 27 Sep 2020 00:01 , <xxxxxx@gmail.com> wrote:

I'm interested for a review of the parts related to spin habitats. I'm aware that Clement Sector had a Traveller version (no longer in release) and a Cepheus Engine version of their core rules and I'm not sure how shipbuilding differs from (CT/MgT) origins, but if the spin habitat section was worthwhile (ie more than a paragraph) and looked like it would work with MgT or CT build approaches, I'd consider shelling out for it. I just don't want to blow $15 to get just that unless it is a) useful and b) has a bit of a decent treatment.

Timothy managed to find a reference from one of the High Guard's that gave some very limited guidance on spin habs. (I didn't think to wonder if it was MgT HG or CT... hmmm).

TomB

--
“The only stable state is the one in which all men are equal before the law.” ― Aristotle

-----
The Traveller Mailing List
Archives at http://archives.simplelists.com/tml
Report problems to xxxxxx@simplelists.com
To unsubscribe from this list please go to
http://archives.simplelists.com

-----
The Traveller Mailing List
Archives at http://archives.simplelists.com/tml
Report problems to xxxxxx@simplelists.com
To unsubscribe from this list please go to
http://archives.simplelists.com

-----
The Traveller Mailing List
Archives at http://archives.simplelists.com/tml
Report problems to xxxxxx@simplelists.com
To unsubscribe from this list please go to
http://archives.simplelists.com

-----
The Traveller Mailing List
Archives at http://archives.simplelists.com/tml
Report problems to xxxxxx@simplelists.com
To unsubscribe from this list please go to
http://www.simplelists.com/confirm.php?u=RDHE7iRpfwqlHvVvWBIhpJZsbTiD5NnL