This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Spaceflight Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Spaceflight, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of spaceflight on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SpaceflightWikipedia:WikiProject SpaceflightTemplate:WikiProject Spaceflightspaceflight articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Physics Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Physics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Physics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PhysicsWikipedia:WikiProject PhysicsTemplate:WikiProject Physicsphysics articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Cmedvid. Peer reviewers: Whitneygeorge, Emily rodriguez.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 14:47, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Somebody should add the halo's in the videogames Halo and Halo 2. I'm too tired as of the now. :\

This would be a much better video game reference than Super Mario Galaxy. >_< Great game, but not a very good example for someone looking up examples of how artificial gravity might work. Zelbinian (talk) 07:06, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See Plot device. Kortoso (talk) 16:47, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

someone should add the recent discovery made at the ESA (see www.esa.int/SPECIALS/GSP/SEM0L6OVGJE_0.html ). I'm not qualified enough to do so, so someone else should probably do. >_>

--85.124.39.23 15:40, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I can't find the article you mentioned, the link is dead. I did find an article, http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0603033, which observed some gravity like effects from superconducting magnets, but this hasn't been confirmed yet.

Speed reading the article shows that a bearing was damaged in their experiment, which caused noise on the sensors but assumed to be smaller than the observed effect...

Until it is confirmed in another published article, I'd describe the field generator as science fiction for now (unfortunately, it would be an awesome invention if applicable in manned space travel). Rmvandijk (talk) 08:46, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Can someone add formulae regarding the numbers that are in the rotation section? The numbers that I get by using the formulae at centrifugal force give me a smaller necessary radius. Rusco 14:09, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I just checked it; 224m at 2rpm that means:

r=224 w=0.209 radians per second

rw^2 = 9.826 m/s^2 WolfKeeper 20:54, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Or you can use ${\displaystyle RPM=29.91{\sqrt {\frac {g}{r))))$, or ${\displaystyle r={\frac {894.6g}((RPM}^{2))))$; where g is the acceleration in terms of earth's gravity and r is the radius in meters.

THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS CENTRIFUGAL FORCE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

There is centrifugal force in a rotating reference frame, as well as coriolis force.WolfKeeper 02:45, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There is also Centrifugal force in a stationary reference frame in ideal circular motion. However instead of the object having centrifugal force exerted on it, it would be exerting centrifugal force on the circe. I.e on a merry-go-round or somesuch. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.226.1.234 (talk) 12:40, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for any lack of formatting. OK, there's a very easy experiment you can perform to show you why rotation COULD be used to simulate gravity, but NOT in the way it has been presented. To start, you need to find an amusement park/ carnival that has a gravitron ride (room that spins very fast, eventually pinning you to the walls). Once you've found one, you need a helium balloon. Any size will do. The last thing you need is a wad of chewing gum. Now this bit can be a tad fiddly, but you need to attach just enough chewing gum to the string (tied to the balloon) so that the helium balloon neither sinks to the ground, nor floats away into the atmosphere. It doesn't have to be perfect, though. It CAN sink/ float a little, as long as the rate of climb/ fall is very small, as you'll need to observe it in the next part. The Next Part: - Take your helium balloon avec gum into the gravitron ride and before the ride starts spinning, release your balloon into the middle of the room. It doesn't have to be the exact middle of the room, really, just as long as it's somewhere where the balloon will not be struck by any part of the rotating room. Observe the results. Outcome: - The spinning room fails to generate or even simulate any kind of gravitational effect on the oblivious balloon. You'll see that it doesn't matter how fast or how slow the room is spinning, the balloon will continue to float in the middle of the room, oblivious. It's remotely possible that the moving air generated by the spinning room might cause the balloon to move, but that's NOT artificial gravity through rotation. That's just wind affecting a balloon! Conclusion: - You can't expect things that work in an environment where the pull of gravity is 'countered' by the person/ the earth to work in an environment where there is no equal/ opposite reaction to gravity, ie: Microgravity or 'Zero' gravity. The balloon remains unaffected by the spinning room because there are no forces acting directly upon it. However, you can change this. On the Artificial Gravity page itself, the 2nd figure there, the moving gif one? If we assume that this is a top-down image of a rotating section of a space craft in microgravity, then once again, an astronaut floating in that room will continue to float in that room, regardless of how fast or how slow the room spins around him. He will never be pushed outwards to the rim, because there are no forces acting upon him (in that direction, or otherwise). HOWEVER, if you extend the 'spokes' in that image all the way from the hub to the rim, an astronaut floating anywhere inside will now find that once the station/ section starts rotating, while he is floating he will soon be struck by these 'spokes' and they will directly apply force to him in the direction of their travel. Of course, because the inside of a circle has a smaller circumference than the outside, these 'spokes' should be angeled to offset this (It's been many years since I did the calculations for this, but if memory serves, the optimal angle is about 13 degrees above the zero degree plane of a radian). Thus these spokes will serve as the floor, NOT the rim. Never the rim. If you find any of this confusing, just do the experiment for yourself. Once you're inside that spinning room, watching the balloon continuing to remain to be unaffected by the rotation, it should all make sense. Peace Raz — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:8003:7992:9E00:CD56:E296:7D59:22E1 (talk) 12:17, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If anyone is interested, I wrote a Java applet to simulate rotational gravity in a space station.

http://www.wolfkeeper.plus.com/coriolis/

I think it's kinda fun, YMMV.WolfKeeper 04:23, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, there is no mention of magnetic boots! There's a redirect page "Magnetic boots" to Artificial gravity, but it's not mentioned... SuperMidget 16:34, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If I understand this formula properly, this ${\displaystyle \times }$ is used as a multiplication sign. Does someone know why the usual sign ${\displaystyle \cdot }$ isn't used?

${\displaystyle g={\frac {R({\frac {\pi \times rpm}{30)))^{2)){9.81))}$
Where:
g = Decimal fraction of Earth gravity
R = Radius from center of rotation in meters
${\displaystyle \pi }$ = 3.14159
rpm = revolutions per minute

Greetasdf 10:19, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The dot isn't usual in my experience. Usually, multiplication is represented by simply juxtaposition. For example ${\displaystyle e=mc^{2))$, where the ${\displaystyle m}$ and the ${\displaystyle c^{2))$ are multiplied with no explicit operator. In my experience, when an operator is used for multiplying numbers, it is more often the cross than the dot, and in this case we need an operator or else rpm will look like three variables being multiplied together. A better solution might be to reduce rpm to a single letter, then use juxtaposition. -- Lilwik 19:30, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Greetasdf 00:52, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can use "f" for frequency of rotation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.25.206.119 (talk) 03:16, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have rewritten the formula to replace the confusing crossproduct with a standard juxtaposition, and more importantly to get rid of the confusing built-in unit conversion, as well as the mix-up of a (non-standard) physical unit (rpm) with a physical quantity (rotation). I did so by expressing the radius of rotation in terms of the orbital period (i.e. a time), e.g. 30 s instead of 2 rpm. That way the formula is just a copy of the standard centripetal force formula, so one citation-needed is no longer needed in the text. Per the standard SI philosophy, units out are given by units in. Lklundin (talk) 09:33, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The link to "http://users.wpi.edu/~rcaron/mars/gravity.shtml" brings up a 404 error. If anyone can update the link, please do so. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tuki (talk • contribs) 19:14, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As of Feb 2011, this link is no longer in the article. N2e (talk) 23:39, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The link to "http://www.hfml.ru.nl/20t-magnet.html" is broken too. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.9.21.50 (talk) 22:16, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have tagged the link as a ((deadlink)). You can do this yourself. Just edit the section and add "((deadlink))" immediately after the closing reftag. Cheers. N2e (talk) 23:39, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What about this - a spaceship moving in a spiral or corkscrew pattern, whith a constatnt velocity along the axis of the corkscrew and the proper diameter and velocity around the circumference of the corkscrew, would move through space at whatever speed desired and provide constant gravity. Essentially you would need to provide thrust of 1g with a vector directly into the center of the corkscrew and then rotate the ship so that "up" is always facing the center. How about it? [[]] 22:05, 6 November 2007 (UTC)micximus

No known propulsion system can work for long enough to make this worthwhile; it uses either obscene amounts of propellant, and/or obscene amounts of energy.WolfKeeper 23:21, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This article needs a section that discusses the usefullness / potential uses of Artificial Gravity.

- Mike

I very interested in gravity, but on a amateur level. I think artificial gravity and some other facts raises some very interesting questions. Hopefully somebody will be kind enough to answer this or at least comment. Maybe this can even be helpful in the scope of the article. The questions are interlinked:

1. Gravity from mass is considered "real" gravity and gravity from acceleration and spinning is considered "artificial" gravity; how can such apparently different phenonomens both create apparently similar forces?

2. When you flush the sink with water the earth´s gravity helps removing the water back in the piping, but the circular movements implies that the earth´s spinning has something to do with things?

3. The earth (or any other celestial body) moves in space as I understand it in quite similar fashion to the spaceship which creates artificial gravity; which phenonomens of earths gravity can´t be explained by this similarity? Can for example that fact that the moon and other satelites orbits the earth only be explained in reference to the mass?

WikiPBia (talk) 12:51, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep in mind WP:BURDEN. Do not restore "Mass" section without good citations, following WP:V, WP:NOR, etc. The Hero of This Nation (talk) 21:52, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I deleted this section again. There are no citations and method described is unrealistic and impractical. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.182.214.218 (talk) 15:26, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted a recent good faith deletion of text by User:Rememberway. The deletion was of a fairly large amount of text, some of it sourced. My view is that the sourced material deletion should be discussed here on the Talk page first before deletion as it is a plausible useful example of linear acceleration (the subject of the section in which the material appears) artificial gravity in current (e.g., ion thruster) and near-term (e.g., VASIMR) low-thrust space propulsion systems that does, in fact, provide a measurable amount, albeit quite low, of artificial gravity. Some of the other material was only recently tagged ^{((citation needed))}; in my view, the tagged material that needs to be sourced ought to be given some reasonable time to be cited, and only then removed from the article.

I've also started looking for sources that would support a narrow article focus only for artificial gravity of at least planetary magnitude, as the lede currently implies. I have read plenty in the literature where artificial gravity environments of, say Moon gravity, at 60 milligees, or for cryogenic fluid management of rocket fuel and oxidizer in second-stages are referred to as "artificial gravity." Cheers. N2e (talk) 08:50, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Artificial gravity should also be considered as a possible source of a new form of transportation. Imaging if you could generate enough gravity to bend space (not too much or you would have a black hole which is bad news) to that rather than having to travel from point A to point B, you could cause points A & B to come together. After all, black holes can be seen to bend light, space, and and even time. R3hall (talk) 02:39, 1 September 2011 (UTC)R3hall[reply]

This is not the place for speculation. —Tamfang (talk) 06:16, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

String theory (and all other theories involving hidden dimensions) predict that gravity and electromagnetism unify in hidden dimensions and that the hidden dimensions are indetectible because of their small size. It does also predict that sufficiently short-waved photons, with wavelengths shorter than the size of the hidden dimensions, can enter them. Producing ultra-short photons can thus manipulate gravity, with revolutionizing space travel applications such as cheap anti-gravity launches. The problem that it would require high energy can be practically solved by concentrating several laser beams on a nanoparticle, heating it to locally extreme temperatures. An Alcubierre metric can be created by ejecting multiple nanoparticles from the craft and then beam perfectly timed laser beams on them (fire at the most distant first so that they are hit simultaneously), so each nanoparticle contributes a slower than light effect but together add up to faster than light, creating no discrete event horizon and thus no Hawking radiation.

By Martin J Sallberg — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.191.166.80 (talk) 13:01, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It should focus on the increase of apparent gravity during space travel. The methods to simulate weightlessness (neutral buoyancy and parabolic flight) are already presented --and more accurately-- in the article on weightlessness Otolith2 (talk) 13:14, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would tend to agree with you. I just removed an even more off-topic blob of prose. Have left a hidden note in that meta-subsection inviting other editors to consider whether neutral buoyancy and parabolic flight should be similarly removed. It seems off topic; but I think we need a 2021 look by another editor besides me to nix it. Cheers. N2e (talk) 18:50, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If the Earth were perfectly flat, a free falling vomit comet in a uniform gravitational field would travel along a parabolic trajectory. However, if the Earth were perfectly spherical, only objects moving at the escape velocity would follow a parabolic trajectory, all slower velocities would result in bound elliptic trajectories. [Ballistic trajectory: parabola, ellipse, or what http://arxiv.org/pdf/physics/0310049v2.pdf ]

I suggest changing the section on "parabolic flight" to "elliptic flight". In this past this change has been met with resistance by flat-Earthers. They correctly point out that pilots at both NASA and Zero G corporation refer to free-fall flight trajectories as "parabolas". Do these pilots know something we don't? and why don't those planes have any windows? 20:18, 11 September 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by NOrbeck (talk • contribs)

You are only being pedantic by insulting people who use the word this way as "Flat-Earthers". There is no significant measurable deviation of the trajectory of a free-falling plane from a true parabola (as there is none of a flat Earth from its true shape) unless the distances are significantly large (a measurable difference in lattitude or longitude.) Why don't you use that magnificent brain to see if you can come up with a sufficiently insulting term for those of us who use Newtonian physics to handle everyday situations instead of relativity (similar approximate accuracy.) The article is just fine the way it is. JustinTime55 (talk) 21:05, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In the "Calculations" example under "Methods for generating artificial gravity" -> "Rotation". Metres should be spelt metres and not meters. A meter is a device that measures, like a gas meter. A metre is a standard unit of length. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.197.127.136 (talk) 11:16, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, the article is written in American English, which uses the spelling "meter", not "metre". - BilCat (talk) 09:27, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I see nothing in here about amusement parks or their thrill rides, despite the fact that many of them rely on their use of acceleration or centrifugal force for the thrill. Scramblers, roller coasters, and other centrifuges have all been employed at amusement parks, yet nary a word is written about them in this article. — Rickyrab. ^{Yada yada yada} 14:13, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This paragraph is in the wrong place. It doesn't help the ongoing discussion. Please consider a different place to put it. Kortoso (talk) 16:26, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've updated the rotation speed plot in the Rotation subsection, mostly to put it in SVG format (previous was in PNG), as well as updating axis labels to be more descriptive and understandable.Tkmckenzie (talk) 18:17, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Am I the only one that has a problem with THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS ARTIFICIAL GRAVITY The effect of gravity can be simulated using other forces, but none of those forces are "gravity". I'd be happy with terms like "apparent gravity", "simulated gravity" just not artificial as if someone created gravity without a mass. Maybe a diclaimer in the lead, explaining that the effects "seem like gravity" and aren't actually "gravity".Dougmcdonell (talk) 21:16, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Old comment, but I'll weigh in. Yeah, you are probably right Dougmcdonell. I'd participate if you were to make a proposal to retitle the article to something better. "Simulated gravity" or similar might work. But "Artificial gravity" MAY meet WP:COMMONNAME, which is why it should probably be done via an explicit proposal on this Talk page, to get a wider cross-section of editors involved. Cheers. N2e (talk) 18:54, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Does it really belong in here? I propose relocating it to astronaut training.Kortoso (talk) 16:41, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Do any reliable sources discuss (or even just mention) the reasons for the lack of any serious Artificial Gravity research programmes on any of our current and previous space stations, and if they do, could we please have them mentioned in our article? These stations would seem to be the ideal place (with, for instance, two spacecraft tethered together by long cables and rotating around each other, as in the 1989/90 Mars proposal) to research how the human body reacts to long periods of artificial Earth-strength gravity (and to learn about the optimum cable length, as too long is heavy and expensive, etc, and too short causes dizziness problems, etc, and what is the optimum number of cables to compensate for cable-snapping or micrometeorite-cable-cutting risks, etc) as seemingly needed for manned flights to Mars and beyond, as well as to long periods of lunar and Martian gravity as needed for prolonged work on the Moon and Mars (presumably interspersed with recuperation periods in artificial Earth-strength gravity in spacecraft or space stations orbiting the Moon or Mars). The cable-snapping or micrometeorite-cable-cutting risks would presumably be higher in a space station near Earth than in interplanetary space due Earth attracting them, and due artificial space debris orbiting Earth, etc. Do any reliable sources say any of this? Tlhslobus (talk) 14:46, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This sentence is troubling: "Unlike real gravity, which pulls towards a center, this pseudo-force in rotating reference frames gives a rotational 'gravity' that pushes away from the axis of rotation."

• It gives the impression that gravity, like centrifugal force, depends on rotation.
• It calls centrifugal force a "pseudo-force" - where is the author's source for that?

I'd be glad to remove this; the rest of the section doesn't need it. Kortoso (talk) 19:25, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Artificial gravity. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add ((cbignore)) after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add ((nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot)) to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.hfml.ru.nl/20t-magnet.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 10:24, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Artificial gravity. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add ((cbignore)) after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add ((nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot)) to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20160206031752/http://www.marsgravity.org/ to http://www.marsgravity.org/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

N An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the |checked= to true

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 18:15, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You guys already mention Interstellar (2014) film in science fiction category,

Please also mention Passengers (2016) film also in this category. Ram nareshji (talk) 03:10, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Artificial gravity. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added ((dead link)) tag to https://nspires.nasaprs.com/external/viewrepositorydocument/cmdocumentid%3D477169/solicitationId%3D%7B9927D6DC-C2F9-5D3E-8BF1-EA4EE3EE0A37%7D/viewSolicitationDocument%3D1/HRP%20Artificial%20Gravity%20Evidence%20Report.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070626165503/http://dx12.jsc.nasa.gov/about/index.shtml to http://dx12.jsc.nasa.gov/about/index.shtml

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template ((source check)) (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:38, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Artificial gravity. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110225085854/http://hobbyspace.com//nucleus/index.php?itemid=26786 to http://www.hobbyspace.com/nucleus/index.php?itemid=26786

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template ((source check)) (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:42, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Rotational gravity" redirects here, and this is a coherent topic (although with considerable topical overlap with absolute rotation).

But "artificial gravity" may or may not be taken to include linear acceleration (?) as well as various sci-fi concepts. It is not obvious that these should be treated as the same topic, it may be better to use disambiguation.

Finally, it is very questionable to treat under "artificial gravity" the topics of "levitation" or "weightlessness", including free fall, diamagnetic levitation and buoyancy along with sci-fi "anti-gravity", and I would suggest linking these topics from a terminological section, or diasambiguation page, at best. --dab (𒁳) 08:35, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Terminology

Google books suggests that "artificial gravity" is mostly used in sci-fi, but it is also does see recent use for rotational gravity in serious-if-popular discussion of manned spaceflight, e.g. this (2014)

"pseudogravity" is, surprisingly, primarily a term in geophysics, as a well defined mathematical object, as far as I can tell in some kind of fourier transform on "little g" in the context of modelling Earth's magnetic field. Of course "pseudogravity" also sees sci-fi usage and what not, but this seems to be the primary usage of the term in scientific literature[1][2]. Clearly, this technical usage of "pseudogravity" is a case for disambiguation.

"rotational gravity" seems to be the WP:UCN primary term used in elementary physics and engineering. [3][4][5]

"centrifugal gravity" appears to by a synonym in good standing of "rotational gravity", although more typically used in the context of high-g centrifuges.[6][7]

--dab (𒁳) 08:54, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

dab, I've removed the off-topic "diamagnetism" material today, which had long been challenged. Waiting for other editors to review the free fall/parabolic flight and neutral buoyancy material. But several editors on this Talk page, in various sections, have expressed a problem with it. So if any one editor agrees after my edit today, I'd recommend just nixing it. N2e (talk) 18:59, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Swing rides have been around for a while in funfairs and amusement parks, and they serve as a quite visible demonstration of a centrifuge in action. Please note that not all of the "gravity" shown is artificial, though! (The swings still point somewhat downwards, but the centrifuge causes "down" on the swings to move outwards.) 2601:8B:C302:D530:216D:3386:9C8A:70AF (talk) 19:49, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

So, under section Human Spaceflight we have the first sentence "The engineering challenges of creating a rotating spacecraft are comparatively modest to any other proposed approach." which some zealous if ill-informed wiki editor has flagged with "Original Research?". Just wondering what universe this little keener is from where there are alternative mechanisms for artificial gravity which come within an observable universe's distance of being as tractable as rotation for generating gravity. Maybe this fine person would like to speak up and explain why they felt sufficiently well informed to make this comment. And no, I am by no means the person who wrote the original sentence, just a human with a working brain and a passable knowledge of physics (got a piece of paper somewhere that'll back that up).2001:56A:F0E9:9B00:41F4:C18A:9CBF:A083 (talk) 07:51, 24 December 2020 (UTC)JustSomeWikiReader[reply]

The entire paragraph was original research attemepting to come up with proposals. Deleted. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 00:41, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In the "Mechanism" section the statement "A traversable interface between parts of the station spinning relative to each other requires large vacuum-tight axial seals." This isn't true if either section resides entirely within the other section (and thus entirely within the craft's pressure canister). It's not the case if for example the spinning section resides entirely within the vessel's pressure canister. The hypothetical "Discovery" spacecraft in "2001: A Space Odyssey" appears to represent an example of such a design. (Whereas the Russian spacecraft "Leonov" depicted in "2010: The Year We Make Contact" appears to require a pressure seal between the sections.)

I suggest eliminating the statement altogether because it's a relatively modest design element. However an option could be: "Depending upon the spececraft's configuration a pressure seal between stationary and rotating sections might be required."

Thoughts please! Cheers. -- H Bruce Campbell (talk) 09:21, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I revised the page by changing the original sentence to "Depending upon the spececraft's configuration..." Please advise if any discomfort. Cheers. --H Bruce Campbell (talk) 19:59, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The "Balls in a rotating spacecraft" image is misleading as it is showing a ball on a curved path in microgravity. A ball will travel in a straight line until it touches a surface. It might appear to travel in a curve by an observer moving with the space station, but not from the stationary perspective that the viewer of this image would have. The ball in the center is correct. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lionjim (talk • contribs) 19:51, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

gif not working. Need to fix. 121.74.135.184 (talk) 02:59, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What do you guys think of this?

In 2021, Vivek Kedia proposed and patented AirSim, a simpler and easier way to generate artificial gravity. Using circulating air, one can create constant force on the body. This doesn't create a constant and uniform force like gravity, as it just affects the surfaces, but being in a constant force will mimic/simulate gravity and mitigate health effects like bone and muscle loss. Further, it can also be used on planetary surfaces to increase the gravity to earth's.^[1] It's simple to implement and the technology already exists. It is not constrained by size like centripetal force idea and others. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Xyzxyz321 (talk • contribs) 18:04, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is just describing a Vertical wind tunnel. It's not a new idea, and it's not artificial gravity because anything with an angled surface would be pushed to the side rather than in the desired direction. MrOllie (talk) 19:08, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello I would like to talk about science and technology 41.115.114.106 (talk) 15:37, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]