Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

NotAnotherEmpire t1_j12j3xp wrote

Reply to comment by thenewcomputer in Could being submersed in a sealed tank of fluid help humans survive heavy G acceleration in outer space? by cheeze_whiz_shampoo

'Harder" being the operative word.

Truly high G - rivaling or exceeding rocket launch - isn't going to happen in space. Transfer orbit trajectories are defined and a truly unbound, straight line transit can accomplish the same total velocity with less violence.

The ship would also need an engine that could do this, and the fuel to burn, and I think at that point you're left with using Orion nukes.

39

TheAero1221 t1_j12nl7b wrote

The Expanse does some fun stuff like this. They use fusion powered engines to accelerate continuously all around the solar system. Most of the time they burn 1g towards their destination, and then flip and decelerate once they're halfway there. Combat and emergencies get considerably more spicy though.

85

someonefun420 t1_j12vr0h wrote

Yeah, good show. They did a lot of things really well and made it feel really authentic.

37

fredoule2k t1_j13ocgs wrote

Yeah, best sci-fi since bsg. It's great that gravity realism is part of the core of the books and series lore.

21

thisimpetus t1_j141mvn wrote

The writers were also heavily involved in the show running which is a big part of why, even where the show deviates from the writing, it continues to feel like The Expanse.

6

fredoule2k t1_j13o54l wrote

In the last books, it's no a spoiler to talk about it, they are using immersion and lung filling tech while sedated in a ship designed for sustained high G travel

6

TeetsMcGeets23 t1_j12oxiy wrote

Wouldn’t the issue be primarily “sudden deceleration” from a high-speed interstellar flight? Like, you’re speeding up constantly through your travel through space then arrive at your destination and have to stop; which for you is essentially accelerating force acting on you from a different direction.

3

sg3niner t1_j12qr8p wrote

Practically speaking, you'd boost for half the trip, flip, and brake the second half.

Instant stop would squish everything.

40

EcchiOli t1_j13ier6 wrote

A certain episode from the Expanse series nicely dealt with this "squish" that would come from instant stop.

For those of you who haven't watched it, imagine a human strapped to a seat, his bones remained in the seat, the flesh kept on moving for a bit longer.

10

grafknives t1_j131g1z wrote

That is not an issue. A single digit G de-acceleration is Still extremely fast in terms of space travel.

If we ignore relativistic effect, we could accelerate/de-accelerate from half C to standstill in 25 days, while experiencing ONLY 1G.

So when flying to alpha Centauri at half C (still ignoring relativistic effects), it would take one month of speeding to C/2 with 1G, 8 years of flying at this "top speed" and one month of slowing down with one G.

G force are NOT a problem at this scale.

24

ChemicalRain5513 t1_j1381fu wrote

Even better, once you take into account time dilation, the distances you can cover with such a manoeuvre in a certain amound of proper tine are equal to the classical calculation. Meaning in 1 human lifetime with 40 years 1G acceleration and then deceleration, you would cover almost 1700 light years in 80 years of proper time. Of course that means everyone you knew on earth is dead.

12

Chilliwhack t1_j150odf wrote

Example above is talking about long distance travel though what about the equivalent of short distance fighters?

1

FogeltheVogel t1_j13c9wf wrote

It's not "essentially". It just is. Deceleration is just acceleration in the other direction.

You can't come to a sudden stop any more than a sudden speed.

11