If human space travel is limited by the G force vulnerability, is there a way to counter G forces?












23












$begingroup$


I read somewhere that prolonged G forces (even 2 Gs) are not tolerated by human physiology and that this ultimately limits our ability to sustain space travel.
Are there any tactics to reduce G force stress on the body?



enter image description here
G-Force numbered
https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20627562-200-maxed-out-how-many-gs-can-you-pull/










share|improve this question









New contributor




Daaood is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.







$endgroup$





This question has an open bounty worth +100
reputation from Muze ending in 5 days.


This question has not received enough attention.












  • 22




    $begingroup$
    The first part of that may be true (that sustained G forces kill you) although this would be a better question if you could give your source. On the other hand current rockets are only able to sustain that kind of acceleration for a few minutes, so it's not really a problem. The scope of possible space travel would massively increase if we could sustain 1G for hours or days (or even years) and only once that is achieved would there be much point in looking at the problems with sustaining 2Gs.
    $endgroup$
    – Steve Linton
    Apr 3 at 13:23






  • 21




    $begingroup$
    What Steve said. Human space travel is not limited by G force vulnerability, except during launch and landing. But once you are out of the atmosphere, fuel is so precious that we use the most gentle, efficient accelerations that will work, and even those accelerations are only momentary.
    $endgroup$
    – Wayne Conrad
    Apr 3 at 13:37






  • 2




    $begingroup$
    Prolonged G forces, even 2 G or less could only produced in a centrifuge on Earth. Rockets in space are limited to a few minutes. There is no available technology for a duration of hours or days. But a constant 1 G accleration would not limit our ability to sustain space travel much more than 2 G. Both are pure science fiction today.
    $endgroup$
    – Uwe
    Apr 3 at 14:39






  • 5




    $begingroup$
    See related How fast will 1g get you there?
    $endgroup$
    – James Jenkins
    Apr 3 at 16:50






  • 3




    $begingroup$
    Roundtrip times at 1g, including subjective time for a relativistic traveller upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f5/Roundtriptimes.png
    $endgroup$
    – JollyJoker
    Apr 4 at 10:48
















23












$begingroup$


I read somewhere that prolonged G forces (even 2 Gs) are not tolerated by human physiology and that this ultimately limits our ability to sustain space travel.
Are there any tactics to reduce G force stress on the body?



enter image description here
G-Force numbered
https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20627562-200-maxed-out-how-many-gs-can-you-pull/










share|improve this question









New contributor




Daaood is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.







$endgroup$





This question has an open bounty worth +100
reputation from Muze ending in 5 days.


This question has not received enough attention.












  • 22




    $begingroup$
    The first part of that may be true (that sustained G forces kill you) although this would be a better question if you could give your source. On the other hand current rockets are only able to sustain that kind of acceleration for a few minutes, so it's not really a problem. The scope of possible space travel would massively increase if we could sustain 1G for hours or days (or even years) and only once that is achieved would there be much point in looking at the problems with sustaining 2Gs.
    $endgroup$
    – Steve Linton
    Apr 3 at 13:23






  • 21




    $begingroup$
    What Steve said. Human space travel is not limited by G force vulnerability, except during launch and landing. But once you are out of the atmosphere, fuel is so precious that we use the most gentle, efficient accelerations that will work, and even those accelerations are only momentary.
    $endgroup$
    – Wayne Conrad
    Apr 3 at 13:37






  • 2




    $begingroup$
    Prolonged G forces, even 2 G or less could only produced in a centrifuge on Earth. Rockets in space are limited to a few minutes. There is no available technology for a duration of hours or days. But a constant 1 G accleration would not limit our ability to sustain space travel much more than 2 G. Both are pure science fiction today.
    $endgroup$
    – Uwe
    Apr 3 at 14:39






  • 5




    $begingroup$
    See related How fast will 1g get you there?
    $endgroup$
    – James Jenkins
    Apr 3 at 16:50






  • 3




    $begingroup$
    Roundtrip times at 1g, including subjective time for a relativistic traveller upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f5/Roundtriptimes.png
    $endgroup$
    – JollyJoker
    Apr 4 at 10:48














23












23








23


2



$begingroup$


I read somewhere that prolonged G forces (even 2 Gs) are not tolerated by human physiology and that this ultimately limits our ability to sustain space travel.
Are there any tactics to reduce G force stress on the body?



enter image description here
G-Force numbered
https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20627562-200-maxed-out-how-many-gs-can-you-pull/










share|improve this question









New contributor




Daaood is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.







$endgroup$




I read somewhere that prolonged G forces (even 2 Gs) are not tolerated by human physiology and that this ultimately limits our ability to sustain space travel.
Are there any tactics to reduce G force stress on the body?



enter image description here
G-Force numbered
https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20627562-200-maxed-out-how-many-gs-can-you-pull/







gravity technology g-force






share|improve this question









New contributor




Daaood is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.











share|improve this question









New contributor




Daaood is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.









share|improve this question




share|improve this question








edited yesterday









Muze

1,2651366




1,2651366






New contributor




Daaood is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.









asked Apr 3 at 13:16









DaaoodDaaood

12513




12513




New contributor




Daaood is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.





New contributor





Daaood is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.






Daaood is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.






This question has an open bounty worth +100
reputation from Muze ending in 5 days.


This question has not received enough attention.








This question has an open bounty worth +100
reputation from Muze ending in 5 days.


This question has not received enough attention.










  • 22




    $begingroup$
    The first part of that may be true (that sustained G forces kill you) although this would be a better question if you could give your source. On the other hand current rockets are only able to sustain that kind of acceleration for a few minutes, so it's not really a problem. The scope of possible space travel would massively increase if we could sustain 1G for hours or days (or even years) and only once that is achieved would there be much point in looking at the problems with sustaining 2Gs.
    $endgroup$
    – Steve Linton
    Apr 3 at 13:23






  • 21




    $begingroup$
    What Steve said. Human space travel is not limited by G force vulnerability, except during launch and landing. But once you are out of the atmosphere, fuel is so precious that we use the most gentle, efficient accelerations that will work, and even those accelerations are only momentary.
    $endgroup$
    – Wayne Conrad
    Apr 3 at 13:37






  • 2




    $begingroup$
    Prolonged G forces, even 2 G or less could only produced in a centrifuge on Earth. Rockets in space are limited to a few minutes. There is no available technology for a duration of hours or days. But a constant 1 G accleration would not limit our ability to sustain space travel much more than 2 G. Both are pure science fiction today.
    $endgroup$
    – Uwe
    Apr 3 at 14:39






  • 5




    $begingroup$
    See related How fast will 1g get you there?
    $endgroup$
    – James Jenkins
    Apr 3 at 16:50






  • 3




    $begingroup$
    Roundtrip times at 1g, including subjective time for a relativistic traveller upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f5/Roundtriptimes.png
    $endgroup$
    – JollyJoker
    Apr 4 at 10:48














  • 22




    $begingroup$
    The first part of that may be true (that sustained G forces kill you) although this would be a better question if you could give your source. On the other hand current rockets are only able to sustain that kind of acceleration for a few minutes, so it's not really a problem. The scope of possible space travel would massively increase if we could sustain 1G for hours or days (or even years) and only once that is achieved would there be much point in looking at the problems with sustaining 2Gs.
    $endgroup$
    – Steve Linton
    Apr 3 at 13:23






  • 21




    $begingroup$
    What Steve said. Human space travel is not limited by G force vulnerability, except during launch and landing. But once you are out of the atmosphere, fuel is so precious that we use the most gentle, efficient accelerations that will work, and even those accelerations are only momentary.
    $endgroup$
    – Wayne Conrad
    Apr 3 at 13:37






  • 2




    $begingroup$
    Prolonged G forces, even 2 G or less could only produced in a centrifuge on Earth. Rockets in space are limited to a few minutes. There is no available technology for a duration of hours or days. But a constant 1 G accleration would not limit our ability to sustain space travel much more than 2 G. Both are pure science fiction today.
    $endgroup$
    – Uwe
    Apr 3 at 14:39






  • 5




    $begingroup$
    See related How fast will 1g get you there?
    $endgroup$
    – James Jenkins
    Apr 3 at 16:50






  • 3




    $begingroup$
    Roundtrip times at 1g, including subjective time for a relativistic traveller upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f5/Roundtriptimes.png
    $endgroup$
    – JollyJoker
    Apr 4 at 10:48








22




22




$begingroup$
The first part of that may be true (that sustained G forces kill you) although this would be a better question if you could give your source. On the other hand current rockets are only able to sustain that kind of acceleration for a few minutes, so it's not really a problem. The scope of possible space travel would massively increase if we could sustain 1G for hours or days (or even years) and only once that is achieved would there be much point in looking at the problems with sustaining 2Gs.
$endgroup$
– Steve Linton
Apr 3 at 13:23




$begingroup$
The first part of that may be true (that sustained G forces kill you) although this would be a better question if you could give your source. On the other hand current rockets are only able to sustain that kind of acceleration for a few minutes, so it's not really a problem. The scope of possible space travel would massively increase if we could sustain 1G for hours or days (or even years) and only once that is achieved would there be much point in looking at the problems with sustaining 2Gs.
$endgroup$
– Steve Linton
Apr 3 at 13:23




21




21




$begingroup$
What Steve said. Human space travel is not limited by G force vulnerability, except during launch and landing. But once you are out of the atmosphere, fuel is so precious that we use the most gentle, efficient accelerations that will work, and even those accelerations are only momentary.
$endgroup$
– Wayne Conrad
Apr 3 at 13:37




$begingroup$
What Steve said. Human space travel is not limited by G force vulnerability, except during launch and landing. But once you are out of the atmosphere, fuel is so precious that we use the most gentle, efficient accelerations that will work, and even those accelerations are only momentary.
$endgroup$
– Wayne Conrad
Apr 3 at 13:37




2




2




$begingroup$
Prolonged G forces, even 2 G or less could only produced in a centrifuge on Earth. Rockets in space are limited to a few minutes. There is no available technology for a duration of hours or days. But a constant 1 G accleration would not limit our ability to sustain space travel much more than 2 G. Both are pure science fiction today.
$endgroup$
– Uwe
Apr 3 at 14:39




$begingroup$
Prolonged G forces, even 2 G or less could only produced in a centrifuge on Earth. Rockets in space are limited to a few minutes. There is no available technology for a duration of hours or days. But a constant 1 G accleration would not limit our ability to sustain space travel much more than 2 G. Both are pure science fiction today.
$endgroup$
– Uwe
Apr 3 at 14:39




5




5




$begingroup$
See related How fast will 1g get you there?
$endgroup$
– James Jenkins
Apr 3 at 16:50




$begingroup$
See related How fast will 1g get you there?
$endgroup$
– James Jenkins
Apr 3 at 16:50




3




3




$begingroup$
Roundtrip times at 1g, including subjective time for a relativistic traveller upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f5/Roundtriptimes.png
$endgroup$
– JollyJoker
Apr 4 at 10:48




$begingroup$
Roundtrip times at 1g, including subjective time for a relativistic traveller upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f5/Roundtriptimes.png
$endgroup$
– JollyJoker
Apr 4 at 10:48










4 Answers
4






active

oldest

votes


















61












$begingroup$

The problem isn't so much that humans cannot sustain high G forces for any extended length of time: The problem is that rockets cannot. If a rocket could sustain 1 g acceleration for a bit over a day, we could go to Mars in a bit over a day. It instead takes several months to get to Mars because the rockets used to get there only fire for a few minutes. The spacecraft then coasts all the way to Mars. Just a few hundredths of a g of sustained acceleration would cut the trip time to Mars down to a week or so.



The chemical engines currently used to propel spacecraft on interplanetary trajectories coupled with the tyranny of the rocket equation are the key reasons rocket cannot sustain high accelerations for an extended length of time. There are some promising low thrust / high efficiency (high specific impulse) technologies such as ion thrusters that might help humans get beyond the Moon. Ion thrusters are in use now, but none are quite ready for prime time when it comes to human spaceflight. There are some promising high thrust / somewhat high specific impulse nuclear technologies that might be useful; these are mired in politics.



Other than science fiction, there is no known technology that could take humans beyond the solar system.






share|improve this answer











$endgroup$









  • 18




    $begingroup$
    I disagree with your last sentence we have the tech to get humans beyond the solar system. Getting there and back in a single human life time would be a totally different question/answer. +1 for the rest of the answer though
    $endgroup$
    – James Jenkins
    Apr 3 at 16:47








  • 6




    $begingroup$
    @davek Your max speed is lightspeed, though as we near it the energy required to accelerate further steadily climbs - So your basic premise is sound but isn't relevant until we're working in very large fractions of C - or never an issue at all, with present technology.
    $endgroup$
    – Saiboogu
    Apr 3 at 18:36






  • 10




    $begingroup$
    @davek you stop accelerating in a plane because the drag from air resistance is equal and opposite to the thrust from the engines at some speed, since there's no air in space there's basically nothing to stop you accelerating more until you get close the speed of light and relativistic effects become significant
    $endgroup$
    – llama
    Apr 3 at 19:19






  • 3




    $begingroup$
    @jpmc26 - I was referring to ion thrusters. The problem is they're currently of such low thrust that the mass of humans and the life support systems needed to power them would require ridiculously large amounts of electrical power, which would entail even more mass. Ion thrusters are great for geosynchronous satellites and smallish probes to the asteroids. They're not quite there yet for human spaceflight.
    $endgroup$
    – David Hammen
    Apr 3 at 22:51






  • 5




    $begingroup$
    @davek The source must be making some assumption about the amount of reaction mass you are able or willing to start with. An ion engine is, in fact, a rocket like any other, just one with a very high exhaust velocity. Accelerating to to 90 km/s with current ion drives would involve about 90% of the starting mass of the spaceship being reaction mass, but if you could somehow manage to start with 99% reaction mass, you could achieve 180 km/s.
    $endgroup$
    – Steve Linton
    Apr 4 at 20:07



















44












$begingroup$

Ignoring the major point that human tolerance of G forces is not the limiting factor on space travel, plenty of thought has been made on how to counteract G forces, not least by 60's scifi writers.



You can find more information than you ever wanted at Projectrho on this topic.



The general gist: for lowish accelerations like 2 G, you don't need to do anything special to the human body, just make sure you're lying either prone or on your back, and remaining disciplined about your breathing.



For higher Gs, like 5G+, you need to carefully manage the human body, putting it in a gel-like coccoon of similar density, and substituting air for a breathable liquid. Any differences in density can result in the denser parts of the body tending to 'settle' towards the back of the ship, and so must be avoided where possible.



Of course, such measures to counteract G forces can only ever be necessary with the use of nuclear or antimatter propellant. Chemical propellants do not burn for long enough to require such measures.






share|improve this answer









$endgroup$









  • 7




    $begingroup$
    Best answer. This actually addresses the question, flawed as its premise is.
    $endgroup$
    – user45266
    Apr 4 at 5:27






  • 2




    $begingroup$
    In fiction, balance with gravity from mass you carry along, like the classic 'sailboat carrying its own fan' -- scifi.sx or tvtropes (warning! warning!) at 'Inertial Dampening'. (And in another McAndrew/Roker story, Sheffield also has the solution to propelling this monster -- self-energy of interstellar vacuum. Sure.)
    $endgroup$
    – dave_thompson_085
    Apr 4 at 6:18










  • $begingroup$
    Just install reactionless thrusters. Lots of SciFi spaceships have them. :-)
    $endgroup$
    – Carl Witthoft
    Apr 4 at 17:28






  • 4




    $begingroup$
    He was exposed to those G forces briefly. The question is about longer duration G-forces. 30G is definitely not survivable over the period of a day.
    $endgroup$
    – Ingolifs
    Apr 4 at 20:47






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    Going past the 60's...Most modern SciFi seems to admit G-dampening/G-compensators/G-Generators are A Thing in spaceflight, but don't go into any details about how they do it.
    $endgroup$
    – T.E.D.
    Apr 4 at 21:51





















5












$begingroup$

This is way beyond foreseeable economic possibilities, but the physics is sound:



Gravity is a surefire, scalable, elegant way to counteract G forces from acceleration.



A planet-sized spaceship with its own gravitational pull of 5 Gs could accelerate at 4 Gs, people living towards its tail would only experience the difference, one G.



(note that I'm talking about a ship roughly 5 times the mass of Earth, minus density differences)



The same is true for a ship with 100 Gs accelerating at 99 Gs.



Edit: moving the people through tunnels in the ship towards the front of it would allow for keeping the one G experience as propulsion slowly shifted to breaking.






share|improve this answer











$endgroup$









  • 2




    $begingroup$
    Of course, then you have the problem of high-G loads when you stop accelerating. And you probably want to decelerate once you arrive at your destination, which is even worse for our hapless passengers.
    $endgroup$
    – chepner
    Apr 4 at 20:35












  • $begingroup$
    @chepner Put them on the orbit of their planet-ship, then cut off the acceleration. They'll be in microgravity.
    $endgroup$
    – kubanczyk
    Apr 4 at 21:13










  • $begingroup$
    Why not just be in orbit the entire time? Then you don't need a larger planet, or have the acceleration tied to the gravitational pull of the planet.
    $endgroup$
    – chepner
    Apr 4 at 21:22










  • $begingroup$
    When you stop accelerating you need to move further away from the <strike>planet</strike> spaceship. Gravity strenght decreases the further you are away. Two pairs of limit quarters (one on the ground, one really high up) could solve this. And to decelerate your turn the thing around. Not the plant/ship, but you move to the opposite side of the planet and use another pair of engines.
    $endgroup$
    – Hennes
    2 days ago










  • $begingroup$
    Since gravity is only space-time curvature, maybe antimatter could help in warping up the space and create artificial g loads :|
    $endgroup$
    – Prakhar
    2 days ago



















1












$begingroup$

G Force is a function of acceleration.
Gravity works on a mass to pull it toward another mass. Large masses have higher levels of gravitational attraction. The force of gravity on Jupiter and Saturn is stronger thatn that on earth. The moon less than on earth.



On earth gravity is a force that continues to pulls us down toward the center of the earth. The physical surface stops that acceleration. Our weight is the measure of that force acting on our mass.



Acceleration is a change in speed. When coasting (no acceleration nor deceleration forces) then there is no g-load (weightlessness in space).



Accelerating in a car, plane or spaceship causes G-Loads. Again, it is the acceleration that is causing the load. Banking an airplane in a 60 degree bank will cause g-loads on the body due to centripetal force. Looping and airplane will do the same. An inside look causes positive g-load while and outside loop causes negative g-load. Both are measured by effect on the body. When upright, positive g-loads causing blood to flow out of the head toward the feet and negative g-loads causing blood to flow from feet to head. human bodies tolerate positive g-loads better than negative. Lying down, like in many fighter jets help mitigate the impacts as more of the body is level.



So toleration of space travel is a combination of tolerating g-loads during accelerating and deceleration phases and weightlessness (absence of acceleration) periods which tend to affect muscles, bone densities, etc.






share|improve this answer








New contributor




Steve is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.






$endgroup$









  • 1




    $begingroup$
    G force isn't a function of acceleration. it is acceleration.
    $endgroup$
    – Ingolifs
    Apr 5 at 0:56










  • $begingroup$
    the force you experience IS a function of acceleration.
    $endgroup$
    – Hobbes
    2 days ago












Your Answer





StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function () {
StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix) {
StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\\(","\\)"]]);
});
});
}, "mathjax-editing");

StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "508"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});

function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: false,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: null,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});


}
});






Daaood is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.










draft saved

draft discarded


















StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fspace.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f35256%2fif-human-space-travel-is-limited-by-the-g-force-vulnerability-is-there-a-way-to%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);

Post as a guest















Required, but never shown

























4 Answers
4






active

oldest

votes








4 Answers
4






active

oldest

votes









active

oldest

votes






active

oldest

votes









61












$begingroup$

The problem isn't so much that humans cannot sustain high G forces for any extended length of time: The problem is that rockets cannot. If a rocket could sustain 1 g acceleration for a bit over a day, we could go to Mars in a bit over a day. It instead takes several months to get to Mars because the rockets used to get there only fire for a few minutes. The spacecraft then coasts all the way to Mars. Just a few hundredths of a g of sustained acceleration would cut the trip time to Mars down to a week or so.



The chemical engines currently used to propel spacecraft on interplanetary trajectories coupled with the tyranny of the rocket equation are the key reasons rocket cannot sustain high accelerations for an extended length of time. There are some promising low thrust / high efficiency (high specific impulse) technologies such as ion thrusters that might help humans get beyond the Moon. Ion thrusters are in use now, but none are quite ready for prime time when it comes to human spaceflight. There are some promising high thrust / somewhat high specific impulse nuclear technologies that might be useful; these are mired in politics.



Other than science fiction, there is no known technology that could take humans beyond the solar system.






share|improve this answer











$endgroup$









  • 18




    $begingroup$
    I disagree with your last sentence we have the tech to get humans beyond the solar system. Getting there and back in a single human life time would be a totally different question/answer. +1 for the rest of the answer though
    $endgroup$
    – James Jenkins
    Apr 3 at 16:47








  • 6




    $begingroup$
    @davek Your max speed is lightspeed, though as we near it the energy required to accelerate further steadily climbs - So your basic premise is sound but isn't relevant until we're working in very large fractions of C - or never an issue at all, with present technology.
    $endgroup$
    – Saiboogu
    Apr 3 at 18:36






  • 10




    $begingroup$
    @davek you stop accelerating in a plane because the drag from air resistance is equal and opposite to the thrust from the engines at some speed, since there's no air in space there's basically nothing to stop you accelerating more until you get close the speed of light and relativistic effects become significant
    $endgroup$
    – llama
    Apr 3 at 19:19






  • 3




    $begingroup$
    @jpmc26 - I was referring to ion thrusters. The problem is they're currently of such low thrust that the mass of humans and the life support systems needed to power them would require ridiculously large amounts of electrical power, which would entail even more mass. Ion thrusters are great for geosynchronous satellites and smallish probes to the asteroids. They're not quite there yet for human spaceflight.
    $endgroup$
    – David Hammen
    Apr 3 at 22:51






  • 5




    $begingroup$
    @davek The source must be making some assumption about the amount of reaction mass you are able or willing to start with. An ion engine is, in fact, a rocket like any other, just one with a very high exhaust velocity. Accelerating to to 90 km/s with current ion drives would involve about 90% of the starting mass of the spaceship being reaction mass, but if you could somehow manage to start with 99% reaction mass, you could achieve 180 km/s.
    $endgroup$
    – Steve Linton
    Apr 4 at 20:07
















61












$begingroup$

The problem isn't so much that humans cannot sustain high G forces for any extended length of time: The problem is that rockets cannot. If a rocket could sustain 1 g acceleration for a bit over a day, we could go to Mars in a bit over a day. It instead takes several months to get to Mars because the rockets used to get there only fire for a few minutes. The spacecraft then coasts all the way to Mars. Just a few hundredths of a g of sustained acceleration would cut the trip time to Mars down to a week or so.



The chemical engines currently used to propel spacecraft on interplanetary trajectories coupled with the tyranny of the rocket equation are the key reasons rocket cannot sustain high accelerations for an extended length of time. There are some promising low thrust / high efficiency (high specific impulse) technologies such as ion thrusters that might help humans get beyond the Moon. Ion thrusters are in use now, but none are quite ready for prime time when it comes to human spaceflight. There are some promising high thrust / somewhat high specific impulse nuclear technologies that might be useful; these are mired in politics.



Other than science fiction, there is no known technology that could take humans beyond the solar system.






share|improve this answer











$endgroup$









  • 18




    $begingroup$
    I disagree with your last sentence we have the tech to get humans beyond the solar system. Getting there and back in a single human life time would be a totally different question/answer. +1 for the rest of the answer though
    $endgroup$
    – James Jenkins
    Apr 3 at 16:47








  • 6




    $begingroup$
    @davek Your max speed is lightspeed, though as we near it the energy required to accelerate further steadily climbs - So your basic premise is sound but isn't relevant until we're working in very large fractions of C - or never an issue at all, with present technology.
    $endgroup$
    – Saiboogu
    Apr 3 at 18:36






  • 10




    $begingroup$
    @davek you stop accelerating in a plane because the drag from air resistance is equal and opposite to the thrust from the engines at some speed, since there's no air in space there's basically nothing to stop you accelerating more until you get close the speed of light and relativistic effects become significant
    $endgroup$
    – llama
    Apr 3 at 19:19






  • 3




    $begingroup$
    @jpmc26 - I was referring to ion thrusters. The problem is they're currently of such low thrust that the mass of humans and the life support systems needed to power them would require ridiculously large amounts of electrical power, which would entail even more mass. Ion thrusters are great for geosynchronous satellites and smallish probes to the asteroids. They're not quite there yet for human spaceflight.
    $endgroup$
    – David Hammen
    Apr 3 at 22:51






  • 5




    $begingroup$
    @davek The source must be making some assumption about the amount of reaction mass you are able or willing to start with. An ion engine is, in fact, a rocket like any other, just one with a very high exhaust velocity. Accelerating to to 90 km/s with current ion drives would involve about 90% of the starting mass of the spaceship being reaction mass, but if you could somehow manage to start with 99% reaction mass, you could achieve 180 km/s.
    $endgroup$
    – Steve Linton
    Apr 4 at 20:07














61












61








61





$begingroup$

The problem isn't so much that humans cannot sustain high G forces for any extended length of time: The problem is that rockets cannot. If a rocket could sustain 1 g acceleration for a bit over a day, we could go to Mars in a bit over a day. It instead takes several months to get to Mars because the rockets used to get there only fire for a few minutes. The spacecraft then coasts all the way to Mars. Just a few hundredths of a g of sustained acceleration would cut the trip time to Mars down to a week or so.



The chemical engines currently used to propel spacecraft on interplanetary trajectories coupled with the tyranny of the rocket equation are the key reasons rocket cannot sustain high accelerations for an extended length of time. There are some promising low thrust / high efficiency (high specific impulse) technologies such as ion thrusters that might help humans get beyond the Moon. Ion thrusters are in use now, but none are quite ready for prime time when it comes to human spaceflight. There are some promising high thrust / somewhat high specific impulse nuclear technologies that might be useful; these are mired in politics.



Other than science fiction, there is no known technology that could take humans beyond the solar system.






share|improve this answer











$endgroup$



The problem isn't so much that humans cannot sustain high G forces for any extended length of time: The problem is that rockets cannot. If a rocket could sustain 1 g acceleration for a bit over a day, we could go to Mars in a bit over a day. It instead takes several months to get to Mars because the rockets used to get there only fire for a few minutes. The spacecraft then coasts all the way to Mars. Just a few hundredths of a g of sustained acceleration would cut the trip time to Mars down to a week or so.



The chemical engines currently used to propel spacecraft on interplanetary trajectories coupled with the tyranny of the rocket equation are the key reasons rocket cannot sustain high accelerations for an extended length of time. There are some promising low thrust / high efficiency (high specific impulse) technologies such as ion thrusters that might help humans get beyond the Moon. Ion thrusters are in use now, but none are quite ready for prime time when it comes to human spaceflight. There are some promising high thrust / somewhat high specific impulse nuclear technologies that might be useful; these are mired in politics.



Other than science fiction, there is no known technology that could take humans beyond the solar system.







share|improve this answer














share|improve this answer



share|improve this answer








edited Apr 3 at 22:41

























answered Apr 3 at 14:26









David HammenDavid Hammen

32.1k175142




32.1k175142








  • 18




    $begingroup$
    I disagree with your last sentence we have the tech to get humans beyond the solar system. Getting there and back in a single human life time would be a totally different question/answer. +1 for the rest of the answer though
    $endgroup$
    – James Jenkins
    Apr 3 at 16:47








  • 6




    $begingroup$
    @davek Your max speed is lightspeed, though as we near it the energy required to accelerate further steadily climbs - So your basic premise is sound but isn't relevant until we're working in very large fractions of C - or never an issue at all, with present technology.
    $endgroup$
    – Saiboogu
    Apr 3 at 18:36






  • 10




    $begingroup$
    @davek you stop accelerating in a plane because the drag from air resistance is equal and opposite to the thrust from the engines at some speed, since there's no air in space there's basically nothing to stop you accelerating more until you get close the speed of light and relativistic effects become significant
    $endgroup$
    – llama
    Apr 3 at 19:19






  • 3




    $begingroup$
    @jpmc26 - I was referring to ion thrusters. The problem is they're currently of such low thrust that the mass of humans and the life support systems needed to power them would require ridiculously large amounts of electrical power, which would entail even more mass. Ion thrusters are great for geosynchronous satellites and smallish probes to the asteroids. They're not quite there yet for human spaceflight.
    $endgroup$
    – David Hammen
    Apr 3 at 22:51






  • 5




    $begingroup$
    @davek The source must be making some assumption about the amount of reaction mass you are able or willing to start with. An ion engine is, in fact, a rocket like any other, just one with a very high exhaust velocity. Accelerating to to 90 km/s with current ion drives would involve about 90% of the starting mass of the spaceship being reaction mass, but if you could somehow manage to start with 99% reaction mass, you could achieve 180 km/s.
    $endgroup$
    – Steve Linton
    Apr 4 at 20:07














  • 18




    $begingroup$
    I disagree with your last sentence we have the tech to get humans beyond the solar system. Getting there and back in a single human life time would be a totally different question/answer. +1 for the rest of the answer though
    $endgroup$
    – James Jenkins
    Apr 3 at 16:47








  • 6




    $begingroup$
    @davek Your max speed is lightspeed, though as we near it the energy required to accelerate further steadily climbs - So your basic premise is sound but isn't relevant until we're working in very large fractions of C - or never an issue at all, with present technology.
    $endgroup$
    – Saiboogu
    Apr 3 at 18:36






  • 10




    $begingroup$
    @davek you stop accelerating in a plane because the drag from air resistance is equal and opposite to the thrust from the engines at some speed, since there's no air in space there's basically nothing to stop you accelerating more until you get close the speed of light and relativistic effects become significant
    $endgroup$
    – llama
    Apr 3 at 19:19






  • 3




    $begingroup$
    @jpmc26 - I was referring to ion thrusters. The problem is they're currently of such low thrust that the mass of humans and the life support systems needed to power them would require ridiculously large amounts of electrical power, which would entail even more mass. Ion thrusters are great for geosynchronous satellites and smallish probes to the asteroids. They're not quite there yet for human spaceflight.
    $endgroup$
    – David Hammen
    Apr 3 at 22:51






  • 5




    $begingroup$
    @davek The source must be making some assumption about the amount of reaction mass you are able or willing to start with. An ion engine is, in fact, a rocket like any other, just one with a very high exhaust velocity. Accelerating to to 90 km/s with current ion drives would involve about 90% of the starting mass of the spaceship being reaction mass, but if you could somehow manage to start with 99% reaction mass, you could achieve 180 km/s.
    $endgroup$
    – Steve Linton
    Apr 4 at 20:07








18




18




$begingroup$
I disagree with your last sentence we have the tech to get humans beyond the solar system. Getting there and back in a single human life time would be a totally different question/answer. +1 for the rest of the answer though
$endgroup$
– James Jenkins
Apr 3 at 16:47






$begingroup$
I disagree with your last sentence we have the tech to get humans beyond the solar system. Getting there and back in a single human life time would be a totally different question/answer. +1 for the rest of the answer though
$endgroup$
– James Jenkins
Apr 3 at 16:47






6




6




$begingroup$
@davek Your max speed is lightspeed, though as we near it the energy required to accelerate further steadily climbs - So your basic premise is sound but isn't relevant until we're working in very large fractions of C - or never an issue at all, with present technology.
$endgroup$
– Saiboogu
Apr 3 at 18:36




$begingroup$
@davek Your max speed is lightspeed, though as we near it the energy required to accelerate further steadily climbs - So your basic premise is sound but isn't relevant until we're working in very large fractions of C - or never an issue at all, with present technology.
$endgroup$
– Saiboogu
Apr 3 at 18:36




10




10




$begingroup$
@davek you stop accelerating in a plane because the drag from air resistance is equal and opposite to the thrust from the engines at some speed, since there's no air in space there's basically nothing to stop you accelerating more until you get close the speed of light and relativistic effects become significant
$endgroup$
– llama
Apr 3 at 19:19




$begingroup$
@davek you stop accelerating in a plane because the drag from air resistance is equal and opposite to the thrust from the engines at some speed, since there's no air in space there's basically nothing to stop you accelerating more until you get close the speed of light and relativistic effects become significant
$endgroup$
– llama
Apr 3 at 19:19




3




3




$begingroup$
@jpmc26 - I was referring to ion thrusters. The problem is they're currently of such low thrust that the mass of humans and the life support systems needed to power them would require ridiculously large amounts of electrical power, which would entail even more mass. Ion thrusters are great for geosynchronous satellites and smallish probes to the asteroids. They're not quite there yet for human spaceflight.
$endgroup$
– David Hammen
Apr 3 at 22:51




$begingroup$
@jpmc26 - I was referring to ion thrusters. The problem is they're currently of such low thrust that the mass of humans and the life support systems needed to power them would require ridiculously large amounts of electrical power, which would entail even more mass. Ion thrusters are great for geosynchronous satellites and smallish probes to the asteroids. They're not quite there yet for human spaceflight.
$endgroup$
– David Hammen
Apr 3 at 22:51




5




5




$begingroup$
@davek The source must be making some assumption about the amount of reaction mass you are able or willing to start with. An ion engine is, in fact, a rocket like any other, just one with a very high exhaust velocity. Accelerating to to 90 km/s with current ion drives would involve about 90% of the starting mass of the spaceship being reaction mass, but if you could somehow manage to start with 99% reaction mass, you could achieve 180 km/s.
$endgroup$
– Steve Linton
Apr 4 at 20:07




$begingroup$
@davek The source must be making some assumption about the amount of reaction mass you are able or willing to start with. An ion engine is, in fact, a rocket like any other, just one with a very high exhaust velocity. Accelerating to to 90 km/s with current ion drives would involve about 90% of the starting mass of the spaceship being reaction mass, but if you could somehow manage to start with 99% reaction mass, you could achieve 180 km/s.
$endgroup$
– Steve Linton
Apr 4 at 20:07











44












$begingroup$

Ignoring the major point that human tolerance of G forces is not the limiting factor on space travel, plenty of thought has been made on how to counteract G forces, not least by 60's scifi writers.



You can find more information than you ever wanted at Projectrho on this topic.



The general gist: for lowish accelerations like 2 G, you don't need to do anything special to the human body, just make sure you're lying either prone or on your back, and remaining disciplined about your breathing.



For higher Gs, like 5G+, you need to carefully manage the human body, putting it in a gel-like coccoon of similar density, and substituting air for a breathable liquid. Any differences in density can result in the denser parts of the body tending to 'settle' towards the back of the ship, and so must be avoided where possible.



Of course, such measures to counteract G forces can only ever be necessary with the use of nuclear or antimatter propellant. Chemical propellants do not burn for long enough to require such measures.






share|improve this answer









$endgroup$









  • 7




    $begingroup$
    Best answer. This actually addresses the question, flawed as its premise is.
    $endgroup$
    – user45266
    Apr 4 at 5:27






  • 2




    $begingroup$
    In fiction, balance with gravity from mass you carry along, like the classic 'sailboat carrying its own fan' -- scifi.sx or tvtropes (warning! warning!) at 'Inertial Dampening'. (And in another McAndrew/Roker story, Sheffield also has the solution to propelling this monster -- self-energy of interstellar vacuum. Sure.)
    $endgroup$
    – dave_thompson_085
    Apr 4 at 6:18










  • $begingroup$
    Just install reactionless thrusters. Lots of SciFi spaceships have them. :-)
    $endgroup$
    – Carl Witthoft
    Apr 4 at 17:28






  • 4




    $begingroup$
    He was exposed to those G forces briefly. The question is about longer duration G-forces. 30G is definitely not survivable over the period of a day.
    $endgroup$
    – Ingolifs
    Apr 4 at 20:47






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    Going past the 60's...Most modern SciFi seems to admit G-dampening/G-compensators/G-Generators are A Thing in spaceflight, but don't go into any details about how they do it.
    $endgroup$
    – T.E.D.
    Apr 4 at 21:51


















44












$begingroup$

Ignoring the major point that human tolerance of G forces is not the limiting factor on space travel, plenty of thought has been made on how to counteract G forces, not least by 60's scifi writers.



You can find more information than you ever wanted at Projectrho on this topic.



The general gist: for lowish accelerations like 2 G, you don't need to do anything special to the human body, just make sure you're lying either prone or on your back, and remaining disciplined about your breathing.



For higher Gs, like 5G+, you need to carefully manage the human body, putting it in a gel-like coccoon of similar density, and substituting air for a breathable liquid. Any differences in density can result in the denser parts of the body tending to 'settle' towards the back of the ship, and so must be avoided where possible.



Of course, such measures to counteract G forces can only ever be necessary with the use of nuclear or antimatter propellant. Chemical propellants do not burn for long enough to require such measures.






share|improve this answer









$endgroup$









  • 7




    $begingroup$
    Best answer. This actually addresses the question, flawed as its premise is.
    $endgroup$
    – user45266
    Apr 4 at 5:27






  • 2




    $begingroup$
    In fiction, balance with gravity from mass you carry along, like the classic 'sailboat carrying its own fan' -- scifi.sx or tvtropes (warning! warning!) at 'Inertial Dampening'. (And in another McAndrew/Roker story, Sheffield also has the solution to propelling this monster -- self-energy of interstellar vacuum. Sure.)
    $endgroup$
    – dave_thompson_085
    Apr 4 at 6:18










  • $begingroup$
    Just install reactionless thrusters. Lots of SciFi spaceships have them. :-)
    $endgroup$
    – Carl Witthoft
    Apr 4 at 17:28






  • 4




    $begingroup$
    He was exposed to those G forces briefly. The question is about longer duration G-forces. 30G is definitely not survivable over the period of a day.
    $endgroup$
    – Ingolifs
    Apr 4 at 20:47






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    Going past the 60's...Most modern SciFi seems to admit G-dampening/G-compensators/G-Generators are A Thing in spaceflight, but don't go into any details about how they do it.
    $endgroup$
    – T.E.D.
    Apr 4 at 21:51
















44












44








44





$begingroup$

Ignoring the major point that human tolerance of G forces is not the limiting factor on space travel, plenty of thought has been made on how to counteract G forces, not least by 60's scifi writers.



You can find more information than you ever wanted at Projectrho on this topic.



The general gist: for lowish accelerations like 2 G, you don't need to do anything special to the human body, just make sure you're lying either prone or on your back, and remaining disciplined about your breathing.



For higher Gs, like 5G+, you need to carefully manage the human body, putting it in a gel-like coccoon of similar density, and substituting air for a breathable liquid. Any differences in density can result in the denser parts of the body tending to 'settle' towards the back of the ship, and so must be avoided where possible.



Of course, such measures to counteract G forces can only ever be necessary with the use of nuclear or antimatter propellant. Chemical propellants do not burn for long enough to require such measures.






share|improve this answer









$endgroup$



Ignoring the major point that human tolerance of G forces is not the limiting factor on space travel, plenty of thought has been made on how to counteract G forces, not least by 60's scifi writers.



You can find more information than you ever wanted at Projectrho on this topic.



The general gist: for lowish accelerations like 2 G, you don't need to do anything special to the human body, just make sure you're lying either prone or on your back, and remaining disciplined about your breathing.



For higher Gs, like 5G+, you need to carefully manage the human body, putting it in a gel-like coccoon of similar density, and substituting air for a breathable liquid. Any differences in density can result in the denser parts of the body tending to 'settle' towards the back of the ship, and so must be avoided where possible.



Of course, such measures to counteract G forces can only ever be necessary with the use of nuclear or antimatter propellant. Chemical propellants do not burn for long enough to require such measures.







share|improve this answer












share|improve this answer



share|improve this answer










answered Apr 4 at 1:27









IngolifsIngolifs

2,307726




2,307726








  • 7




    $begingroup$
    Best answer. This actually addresses the question, flawed as its premise is.
    $endgroup$
    – user45266
    Apr 4 at 5:27






  • 2




    $begingroup$
    In fiction, balance with gravity from mass you carry along, like the classic 'sailboat carrying its own fan' -- scifi.sx or tvtropes (warning! warning!) at 'Inertial Dampening'. (And in another McAndrew/Roker story, Sheffield also has the solution to propelling this monster -- self-energy of interstellar vacuum. Sure.)
    $endgroup$
    – dave_thompson_085
    Apr 4 at 6:18










  • $begingroup$
    Just install reactionless thrusters. Lots of SciFi spaceships have them. :-)
    $endgroup$
    – Carl Witthoft
    Apr 4 at 17:28






  • 4




    $begingroup$
    He was exposed to those G forces briefly. The question is about longer duration G-forces. 30G is definitely not survivable over the period of a day.
    $endgroup$
    – Ingolifs
    Apr 4 at 20:47






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    Going past the 60's...Most modern SciFi seems to admit G-dampening/G-compensators/G-Generators are A Thing in spaceflight, but don't go into any details about how they do it.
    $endgroup$
    – T.E.D.
    Apr 4 at 21:51
















  • 7




    $begingroup$
    Best answer. This actually addresses the question, flawed as its premise is.
    $endgroup$
    – user45266
    Apr 4 at 5:27






  • 2




    $begingroup$
    In fiction, balance with gravity from mass you carry along, like the classic 'sailboat carrying its own fan' -- scifi.sx or tvtropes (warning! warning!) at 'Inertial Dampening'. (And in another McAndrew/Roker story, Sheffield also has the solution to propelling this monster -- self-energy of interstellar vacuum. Sure.)
    $endgroup$
    – dave_thompson_085
    Apr 4 at 6:18










  • $begingroup$
    Just install reactionless thrusters. Lots of SciFi spaceships have them. :-)
    $endgroup$
    – Carl Witthoft
    Apr 4 at 17:28






  • 4




    $begingroup$
    He was exposed to those G forces briefly. The question is about longer duration G-forces. 30G is definitely not survivable over the period of a day.
    $endgroup$
    – Ingolifs
    Apr 4 at 20:47






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    Going past the 60's...Most modern SciFi seems to admit G-dampening/G-compensators/G-Generators are A Thing in spaceflight, but don't go into any details about how they do it.
    $endgroup$
    – T.E.D.
    Apr 4 at 21:51










7




7




$begingroup$
Best answer. This actually addresses the question, flawed as its premise is.
$endgroup$
– user45266
Apr 4 at 5:27




$begingroup$
Best answer. This actually addresses the question, flawed as its premise is.
$endgroup$
– user45266
Apr 4 at 5:27




2




2




$begingroup$
In fiction, balance with gravity from mass you carry along, like the classic 'sailboat carrying its own fan' -- scifi.sx or tvtropes (warning! warning!) at 'Inertial Dampening'. (And in another McAndrew/Roker story, Sheffield also has the solution to propelling this monster -- self-energy of interstellar vacuum. Sure.)
$endgroup$
– dave_thompson_085
Apr 4 at 6:18




$begingroup$
In fiction, balance with gravity from mass you carry along, like the classic 'sailboat carrying its own fan' -- scifi.sx or tvtropes (warning! warning!) at 'Inertial Dampening'. (And in another McAndrew/Roker story, Sheffield also has the solution to propelling this monster -- self-energy of interstellar vacuum. Sure.)
$endgroup$
– dave_thompson_085
Apr 4 at 6:18












$begingroup$
Just install reactionless thrusters. Lots of SciFi spaceships have them. :-)
$endgroup$
– Carl Witthoft
Apr 4 at 17:28




$begingroup$
Just install reactionless thrusters. Lots of SciFi spaceships have them. :-)
$endgroup$
– Carl Witthoft
Apr 4 at 17:28




4




4




$begingroup$
He was exposed to those G forces briefly. The question is about longer duration G-forces. 30G is definitely not survivable over the period of a day.
$endgroup$
– Ingolifs
Apr 4 at 20:47




$begingroup$
He was exposed to those G forces briefly. The question is about longer duration G-forces. 30G is definitely not survivable over the period of a day.
$endgroup$
– Ingolifs
Apr 4 at 20:47




1




1




$begingroup$
Going past the 60's...Most modern SciFi seems to admit G-dampening/G-compensators/G-Generators are A Thing in spaceflight, but don't go into any details about how they do it.
$endgroup$
– T.E.D.
Apr 4 at 21:51






$begingroup$
Going past the 60's...Most modern SciFi seems to admit G-dampening/G-compensators/G-Generators are A Thing in spaceflight, but don't go into any details about how they do it.
$endgroup$
– T.E.D.
Apr 4 at 21:51













5












$begingroup$

This is way beyond foreseeable economic possibilities, but the physics is sound:



Gravity is a surefire, scalable, elegant way to counteract G forces from acceleration.



A planet-sized spaceship with its own gravitational pull of 5 Gs could accelerate at 4 Gs, people living towards its tail would only experience the difference, one G.



(note that I'm talking about a ship roughly 5 times the mass of Earth, minus density differences)



The same is true for a ship with 100 Gs accelerating at 99 Gs.



Edit: moving the people through tunnels in the ship towards the front of it would allow for keeping the one G experience as propulsion slowly shifted to breaking.






share|improve this answer











$endgroup$









  • 2




    $begingroup$
    Of course, then you have the problem of high-G loads when you stop accelerating. And you probably want to decelerate once you arrive at your destination, which is even worse for our hapless passengers.
    $endgroup$
    – chepner
    Apr 4 at 20:35












  • $begingroup$
    @chepner Put them on the orbit of their planet-ship, then cut off the acceleration. They'll be in microgravity.
    $endgroup$
    – kubanczyk
    Apr 4 at 21:13










  • $begingroup$
    Why not just be in orbit the entire time? Then you don't need a larger planet, or have the acceleration tied to the gravitational pull of the planet.
    $endgroup$
    – chepner
    Apr 4 at 21:22










  • $begingroup$
    When you stop accelerating you need to move further away from the <strike>planet</strike> spaceship. Gravity strenght decreases the further you are away. Two pairs of limit quarters (one on the ground, one really high up) could solve this. And to decelerate your turn the thing around. Not the plant/ship, but you move to the opposite side of the planet and use another pair of engines.
    $endgroup$
    – Hennes
    2 days ago










  • $begingroup$
    Since gravity is only space-time curvature, maybe antimatter could help in warping up the space and create artificial g loads :|
    $endgroup$
    – Prakhar
    2 days ago
















5












$begingroup$

This is way beyond foreseeable economic possibilities, but the physics is sound:



Gravity is a surefire, scalable, elegant way to counteract G forces from acceleration.



A planet-sized spaceship with its own gravitational pull of 5 Gs could accelerate at 4 Gs, people living towards its tail would only experience the difference, one G.



(note that I'm talking about a ship roughly 5 times the mass of Earth, minus density differences)



The same is true for a ship with 100 Gs accelerating at 99 Gs.



Edit: moving the people through tunnels in the ship towards the front of it would allow for keeping the one G experience as propulsion slowly shifted to breaking.






share|improve this answer











$endgroup$









  • 2




    $begingroup$
    Of course, then you have the problem of high-G loads when you stop accelerating. And you probably want to decelerate once you arrive at your destination, which is even worse for our hapless passengers.
    $endgroup$
    – chepner
    Apr 4 at 20:35












  • $begingroup$
    @chepner Put them on the orbit of their planet-ship, then cut off the acceleration. They'll be in microgravity.
    $endgroup$
    – kubanczyk
    Apr 4 at 21:13










  • $begingroup$
    Why not just be in orbit the entire time? Then you don't need a larger planet, or have the acceleration tied to the gravitational pull of the planet.
    $endgroup$
    – chepner
    Apr 4 at 21:22










  • $begingroup$
    When you stop accelerating you need to move further away from the <strike>planet</strike> spaceship. Gravity strenght decreases the further you are away. Two pairs of limit quarters (one on the ground, one really high up) could solve this. And to decelerate your turn the thing around. Not the plant/ship, but you move to the opposite side of the planet and use another pair of engines.
    $endgroup$
    – Hennes
    2 days ago










  • $begingroup$
    Since gravity is only space-time curvature, maybe antimatter could help in warping up the space and create artificial g loads :|
    $endgroup$
    – Prakhar
    2 days ago














5












5








5





$begingroup$

This is way beyond foreseeable economic possibilities, but the physics is sound:



Gravity is a surefire, scalable, elegant way to counteract G forces from acceleration.



A planet-sized spaceship with its own gravitational pull of 5 Gs could accelerate at 4 Gs, people living towards its tail would only experience the difference, one G.



(note that I'm talking about a ship roughly 5 times the mass of Earth, minus density differences)



The same is true for a ship with 100 Gs accelerating at 99 Gs.



Edit: moving the people through tunnels in the ship towards the front of it would allow for keeping the one G experience as propulsion slowly shifted to breaking.






share|improve this answer











$endgroup$



This is way beyond foreseeable economic possibilities, but the physics is sound:



Gravity is a surefire, scalable, elegant way to counteract G forces from acceleration.



A planet-sized spaceship with its own gravitational pull of 5 Gs could accelerate at 4 Gs, people living towards its tail would only experience the difference, one G.



(note that I'm talking about a ship roughly 5 times the mass of Earth, minus density differences)



The same is true for a ship with 100 Gs accelerating at 99 Gs.



Edit: moving the people through tunnels in the ship towards the front of it would allow for keeping the one G experience as propulsion slowly shifted to breaking.







share|improve this answer














share|improve this answer



share|improve this answer








edited yesterday

























answered Apr 4 at 19:37









Emilio M BumacharEmilio M Bumachar

5431410




5431410








  • 2




    $begingroup$
    Of course, then you have the problem of high-G loads when you stop accelerating. And you probably want to decelerate once you arrive at your destination, which is even worse for our hapless passengers.
    $endgroup$
    – chepner
    Apr 4 at 20:35












  • $begingroup$
    @chepner Put them on the orbit of their planet-ship, then cut off the acceleration. They'll be in microgravity.
    $endgroup$
    – kubanczyk
    Apr 4 at 21:13










  • $begingroup$
    Why not just be in orbit the entire time? Then you don't need a larger planet, or have the acceleration tied to the gravitational pull of the planet.
    $endgroup$
    – chepner
    Apr 4 at 21:22










  • $begingroup$
    When you stop accelerating you need to move further away from the <strike>planet</strike> spaceship. Gravity strenght decreases the further you are away. Two pairs of limit quarters (one on the ground, one really high up) could solve this. And to decelerate your turn the thing around. Not the plant/ship, but you move to the opposite side of the planet and use another pair of engines.
    $endgroup$
    – Hennes
    2 days ago










  • $begingroup$
    Since gravity is only space-time curvature, maybe antimatter could help in warping up the space and create artificial g loads :|
    $endgroup$
    – Prakhar
    2 days ago














  • 2




    $begingroup$
    Of course, then you have the problem of high-G loads when you stop accelerating. And you probably want to decelerate once you arrive at your destination, which is even worse for our hapless passengers.
    $endgroup$
    – chepner
    Apr 4 at 20:35












  • $begingroup$
    @chepner Put them on the orbit of their planet-ship, then cut off the acceleration. They'll be in microgravity.
    $endgroup$
    – kubanczyk
    Apr 4 at 21:13










  • $begingroup$
    Why not just be in orbit the entire time? Then you don't need a larger planet, or have the acceleration tied to the gravitational pull of the planet.
    $endgroup$
    – chepner
    Apr 4 at 21:22










  • $begingroup$
    When you stop accelerating you need to move further away from the <strike>planet</strike> spaceship. Gravity strenght decreases the further you are away. Two pairs of limit quarters (one on the ground, one really high up) could solve this. And to decelerate your turn the thing around. Not the plant/ship, but you move to the opposite side of the planet and use another pair of engines.
    $endgroup$
    – Hennes
    2 days ago










  • $begingroup$
    Since gravity is only space-time curvature, maybe antimatter could help in warping up the space and create artificial g loads :|
    $endgroup$
    – Prakhar
    2 days ago








2




2




$begingroup$
Of course, then you have the problem of high-G loads when you stop accelerating. And you probably want to decelerate once you arrive at your destination, which is even worse for our hapless passengers.
$endgroup$
– chepner
Apr 4 at 20:35






$begingroup$
Of course, then you have the problem of high-G loads when you stop accelerating. And you probably want to decelerate once you arrive at your destination, which is even worse for our hapless passengers.
$endgroup$
– chepner
Apr 4 at 20:35














$begingroup$
@chepner Put them on the orbit of their planet-ship, then cut off the acceleration. They'll be in microgravity.
$endgroup$
– kubanczyk
Apr 4 at 21:13




$begingroup$
@chepner Put them on the orbit of their planet-ship, then cut off the acceleration. They'll be in microgravity.
$endgroup$
– kubanczyk
Apr 4 at 21:13












$begingroup$
Why not just be in orbit the entire time? Then you don't need a larger planet, or have the acceleration tied to the gravitational pull of the planet.
$endgroup$
– chepner
Apr 4 at 21:22




$begingroup$
Why not just be in orbit the entire time? Then you don't need a larger planet, or have the acceleration tied to the gravitational pull of the planet.
$endgroup$
– chepner
Apr 4 at 21:22












$begingroup$
When you stop accelerating you need to move further away from the <strike>planet</strike> spaceship. Gravity strenght decreases the further you are away. Two pairs of limit quarters (one on the ground, one really high up) could solve this. And to decelerate your turn the thing around. Not the plant/ship, but you move to the opposite side of the planet and use another pair of engines.
$endgroup$
– Hennes
2 days ago




$begingroup$
When you stop accelerating you need to move further away from the <strike>planet</strike> spaceship. Gravity strenght decreases the further you are away. Two pairs of limit quarters (one on the ground, one really high up) could solve this. And to decelerate your turn the thing around. Not the plant/ship, but you move to the opposite side of the planet and use another pair of engines.
$endgroup$
– Hennes
2 days ago












$begingroup$
Since gravity is only space-time curvature, maybe antimatter could help in warping up the space and create artificial g loads :|
$endgroup$
– Prakhar
2 days ago




$begingroup$
Since gravity is only space-time curvature, maybe antimatter could help in warping up the space and create artificial g loads :|
$endgroup$
– Prakhar
2 days ago











1












$begingroup$

G Force is a function of acceleration.
Gravity works on a mass to pull it toward another mass. Large masses have higher levels of gravitational attraction. The force of gravity on Jupiter and Saturn is stronger thatn that on earth. The moon less than on earth.



On earth gravity is a force that continues to pulls us down toward the center of the earth. The physical surface stops that acceleration. Our weight is the measure of that force acting on our mass.



Acceleration is a change in speed. When coasting (no acceleration nor deceleration forces) then there is no g-load (weightlessness in space).



Accelerating in a car, plane or spaceship causes G-Loads. Again, it is the acceleration that is causing the load. Banking an airplane in a 60 degree bank will cause g-loads on the body due to centripetal force. Looping and airplane will do the same. An inside look causes positive g-load while and outside loop causes negative g-load. Both are measured by effect on the body. When upright, positive g-loads causing blood to flow out of the head toward the feet and negative g-loads causing blood to flow from feet to head. human bodies tolerate positive g-loads better than negative. Lying down, like in many fighter jets help mitigate the impacts as more of the body is level.



So toleration of space travel is a combination of tolerating g-loads during accelerating and deceleration phases and weightlessness (absence of acceleration) periods which tend to affect muscles, bone densities, etc.






share|improve this answer








New contributor




Steve is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.






$endgroup$









  • 1




    $begingroup$
    G force isn't a function of acceleration. it is acceleration.
    $endgroup$
    – Ingolifs
    Apr 5 at 0:56










  • $begingroup$
    the force you experience IS a function of acceleration.
    $endgroup$
    – Hobbes
    2 days ago
















1












$begingroup$

G Force is a function of acceleration.
Gravity works on a mass to pull it toward another mass. Large masses have higher levels of gravitational attraction. The force of gravity on Jupiter and Saturn is stronger thatn that on earth. The moon less than on earth.



On earth gravity is a force that continues to pulls us down toward the center of the earth. The physical surface stops that acceleration. Our weight is the measure of that force acting on our mass.



Acceleration is a change in speed. When coasting (no acceleration nor deceleration forces) then there is no g-load (weightlessness in space).



Accelerating in a car, plane or spaceship causes G-Loads. Again, it is the acceleration that is causing the load. Banking an airplane in a 60 degree bank will cause g-loads on the body due to centripetal force. Looping and airplane will do the same. An inside look causes positive g-load while and outside loop causes negative g-load. Both are measured by effect on the body. When upright, positive g-loads causing blood to flow out of the head toward the feet and negative g-loads causing blood to flow from feet to head. human bodies tolerate positive g-loads better than negative. Lying down, like in many fighter jets help mitigate the impacts as more of the body is level.



So toleration of space travel is a combination of tolerating g-loads during accelerating and deceleration phases and weightlessness (absence of acceleration) periods which tend to affect muscles, bone densities, etc.






share|improve this answer








New contributor




Steve is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.






$endgroup$









  • 1




    $begingroup$
    G force isn't a function of acceleration. it is acceleration.
    $endgroup$
    – Ingolifs
    Apr 5 at 0:56










  • $begingroup$
    the force you experience IS a function of acceleration.
    $endgroup$
    – Hobbes
    2 days ago














1












1








1





$begingroup$

G Force is a function of acceleration.
Gravity works on a mass to pull it toward another mass. Large masses have higher levels of gravitational attraction. The force of gravity on Jupiter and Saturn is stronger thatn that on earth. The moon less than on earth.



On earth gravity is a force that continues to pulls us down toward the center of the earth. The physical surface stops that acceleration. Our weight is the measure of that force acting on our mass.



Acceleration is a change in speed. When coasting (no acceleration nor deceleration forces) then there is no g-load (weightlessness in space).



Accelerating in a car, plane or spaceship causes G-Loads. Again, it is the acceleration that is causing the load. Banking an airplane in a 60 degree bank will cause g-loads on the body due to centripetal force. Looping and airplane will do the same. An inside look causes positive g-load while and outside loop causes negative g-load. Both are measured by effect on the body. When upright, positive g-loads causing blood to flow out of the head toward the feet and negative g-loads causing blood to flow from feet to head. human bodies tolerate positive g-loads better than negative. Lying down, like in many fighter jets help mitigate the impacts as more of the body is level.



So toleration of space travel is a combination of tolerating g-loads during accelerating and deceleration phases and weightlessness (absence of acceleration) periods which tend to affect muscles, bone densities, etc.






share|improve this answer








New contributor




Steve is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.






$endgroup$



G Force is a function of acceleration.
Gravity works on a mass to pull it toward another mass. Large masses have higher levels of gravitational attraction. The force of gravity on Jupiter and Saturn is stronger thatn that on earth. The moon less than on earth.



On earth gravity is a force that continues to pulls us down toward the center of the earth. The physical surface stops that acceleration. Our weight is the measure of that force acting on our mass.



Acceleration is a change in speed. When coasting (no acceleration nor deceleration forces) then there is no g-load (weightlessness in space).



Accelerating in a car, plane or spaceship causes G-Loads. Again, it is the acceleration that is causing the load. Banking an airplane in a 60 degree bank will cause g-loads on the body due to centripetal force. Looping and airplane will do the same. An inside look causes positive g-load while and outside loop causes negative g-load. Both are measured by effect on the body. When upright, positive g-loads causing blood to flow out of the head toward the feet and negative g-loads causing blood to flow from feet to head. human bodies tolerate positive g-loads better than negative. Lying down, like in many fighter jets help mitigate the impacts as more of the body is level.



So toleration of space travel is a combination of tolerating g-loads during accelerating and deceleration phases and weightlessness (absence of acceleration) periods which tend to affect muscles, bone densities, etc.







share|improve this answer








New contributor




Steve is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.









share|improve this answer



share|improve this answer






New contributor




Steve is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.









answered Apr 4 at 21:50









SteveSteve

211




211




New contributor




Steve is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.





New contributor





Steve is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.






Steve is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.








  • 1




    $begingroup$
    G force isn't a function of acceleration. it is acceleration.
    $endgroup$
    – Ingolifs
    Apr 5 at 0:56










  • $begingroup$
    the force you experience IS a function of acceleration.
    $endgroup$
    – Hobbes
    2 days ago














  • 1




    $begingroup$
    G force isn't a function of acceleration. it is acceleration.
    $endgroup$
    – Ingolifs
    Apr 5 at 0:56










  • $begingroup$
    the force you experience IS a function of acceleration.
    $endgroup$
    – Hobbes
    2 days ago








1




1




$begingroup$
G force isn't a function of acceleration. it is acceleration.
$endgroup$
– Ingolifs
Apr 5 at 0:56




$begingroup$
G force isn't a function of acceleration. it is acceleration.
$endgroup$
– Ingolifs
Apr 5 at 0:56












$begingroup$
the force you experience IS a function of acceleration.
$endgroup$
– Hobbes
2 days ago




$begingroup$
the force you experience IS a function of acceleration.
$endgroup$
– Hobbes
2 days ago










Daaood is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.










draft saved

draft discarded


















Daaood is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.













Daaood is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.












Daaood is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
















Thanks for contributing an answer to Space Exploration Stack Exchange!


  • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

But avoid



  • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

  • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.


Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.


To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




draft saved


draft discarded














StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fspace.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f35256%2fif-human-space-travel-is-limited-by-the-g-force-vulnerability-is-there-a-way-to%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);

Post as a guest















Required, but never shown





















































Required, but never shown














Required, but never shown












Required, but never shown







Required, but never shown

































Required, but never shown














Required, but never shown












Required, but never shown







Required, but never shown







Popular posts from this blog

Masuk log Menu navigasi

Identifying “long and narrow” polygons in with PostGISlength and width of polygonWhy postgis st_overlaps reports Qgis' “avoid intersections” generated polygon as overlapping with others?Adjusting polygons to boundary and filling holesDrawing polygons with fixed area?How to remove spikes in Polygons with PostGISDeleting sliver polygons after difference operation in QGIS?Snapping boundaries in PostGISSplit polygon into parts adding attributes based on underlying polygon in QGISSplitting overlap between polygons and assign to nearest polygon using PostGIS?Expanding polygons and clipping at midpoint?Removing Intersection of Buffers in Same Layers

Старые Смолеговицы Содержание История | География | Демография | Достопримечательности | Примечания | НавигацияHGЯOLHGЯOL41 206 832 01641 606 406 141Административно-территориальное деление Ленинградской области«Переписная оброчная книга Водской пятины 1500 года», С. 793«Карта Ингерманландии: Ивангорода, Яма, Копорья, Нотеборга», по материалам 1676 г.«Генеральная карта провинции Ингерманландии» Э. Белинга и А. Андерсина, 1704 г., составлена по материалам 1678 г.«Географический чертёж над Ижорскою землей со своими городами» Адриана Шонбека 1705 г.Новая и достоверная всей Ингерманландии ланткарта. Грав. А. Ростовцев. СПб., 1727 г.Топографическая карта Санкт-Петербургской губернии. 5-и верстка. Шуберт. 1834 г.Описание Санкт-Петербургской губернии по уездам и станамСпецкарта западной части России Ф. Ф. Шуберта. 1844 г.Алфавитный список селений по уездам и станам С.-Петербургской губернииСписки населённых мест Российской Империи, составленные и издаваемые центральным статистическим комитетом министерства внутренних дел. XXXVII. Санкт-Петербургская губерния. По состоянию на 1862 год. СПб. 1864. С. 203Материалы по статистике народного хозяйства в С.-Петербургской губернии. Вып. IX. Частновладельческое хозяйство в Ямбургском уезде. СПб, 1888, С. 146, С. 2, 7, 54Положение о гербе муниципального образования Курское сельское поселениеСправочник истории административно-территориального деления Ленинградской области.Топографическая карта Ленинградской области, квадрат О-35-23-В (Хотыницы), 1930 г.АрхивированоАдминистративно-территориальное деление Ленинградской области. — Л., 1933, С. 27, 198АрхивированоАдминистративно-экономический справочник по Ленинградской области. — Л., 1936, с. 219АрхивированоАдминистративно-территориальное деление Ленинградской области. — Л., 1966, с. 175АрхивированоАдминистративно-территориальное деление Ленинградской области. — Лениздат, 1973, С. 180АрхивированоАдминистративно-территориальное деление Ленинградской области. — Лениздат, 1990, ISBN 5-289-00612-5, С. 38АрхивированоАдминистративно-территориальное деление Ленинградской области. — СПб., 2007, с. 60АрхивированоКоряков Юрий База данных «Этно-языковой состав населённых пунктов России». Ленинградская область.Административно-территориальное деление Ленинградской области. — СПб, 1997, ISBN 5-86153-055-6, С. 41АрхивированоКультовый комплекс Старые Смолеговицы // Электронная энциклопедия ЭрмитажаПроблемы выявления, изучения и сохранения культовых комплексов с каменными крестами: по материалам работ 2016-2017 гг. в Ленинградской области