Talk:Rotating wheel space station

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Rotating wheel space station article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Spaceflight: Space stations Low‑importance

	Spaceflight portal 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
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the space stations working group.

Know of a good source on the physics of a rotating wheel space station?[edit]

Does anyone know of a good source on the physics of a rotating wheel space station? I'm thinking equations for artificial gravitational force as a function of the diameter of the "floor" surface and the spin velocity as most important. But other factors such as stress loads (and requisite mass of structural members) to resist the centrifugal forces would also be of interest. In both cases, I think it would make the article more interesting. Cheers. N2e (talk) 23:27, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Startopia?[edit]

is Startopia notable for this? it's a space station game where you must rebuild a wheel space station (its jet engines presumably intact)— Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.173.12.68 (talk • contribs) 2015-08-10T14:43:11

i get different values[edit]

using

REDIRECT [[1]]

84.74.203.12 (talk) 15:04, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Moonraker[edit]

The space station in Moonraker, while not a wheel, used axial thrusters to begin (and as part of the culmination of the plot, stop) rotation to create artificial gravity. Nsayer (talk) 05:24, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Elysium[edit]

Elysium isn't a Stanford Torus because it's too big and has an open center. But it's not a Bishop Ring, as one editor put it, because Bishop rings are an order of magnitude larger and generally sit at Lagrange points. So I edited to say it's between and hopefully that will put the issue to bed. Unless it just shouldn't be an issue and we should just take out any reference to its real-world hypothetical equivalents. Thanks! Rvanarsdale (talk) 18:34, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Elysium habitat has no features that makes the Stanford Torus distinct from other wheeled stations (it's not a torus, for example, it doesn't have spokes & hub). However, it does have the unique aspect of the Bishop Ring, the open "roof" and flat "floor". While the movie example is physically impossible, that's Hollywood, it doesn't change what they were clearly trying to mimic. -- PaulxSA (talk) 12:20, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]