03-25-2016, 11:24 AM
(This post was last modified: 03-25-2016, 11:25 AM by Smith.
Edit Reason: down is up
)
(03-24-2016, 04:29 PM)JoeStrout Wrote: ...
Also, you always have to be careful with scale tests... some effects scale differently than others, which can lead to surprising effects. So scale test results should always be suspect unless you also have detailed theory to back them up.
I guess it's a blessing and a curse that we truly don't know at scale... yet.
Logic says that a\the use of a high speed camera (the kickstarter for the FPS1000 has been calling to me) would give you a great deal of information for checking your rendered models with the exception of the effects of explosive degassing. Space changes everything though and being stuck in a 1g environment does have some chaos impact but I think that at the speed of the event it is relatively minor at the small scale with the light masses of the test artifacts - it's close enough for the visual idea.
Air release after the event on a spinning habitat adds to the complete question also. Debris with highest force of impact should be forced into the habitat and "up" toward the center where some of them will likely stay and bump around "in the air" since they are no longer trapped by the centrifugal force of the spin. Other debris will "fall" back to the interior "floor", but will it fall out of the hole? There's the effect of the speed of the spin and the amount of the force - if any? - that it creates at varying distances to add to the mix.
And even the air molecules are effected by the artificial gravity of a spinning shell and are forced out of the hole so it's not just air pressure that would create the stunning, spiraling rainbows of ice emanating outward into space as the damaged habitat continues to turn.
And that brings to mind the effect on the habitat's spin in relation to various masses and trajectories.
I know that you asked about the look of the hole, but my personal camera can't help pull back and see the grander view.
It really is an excellent question, so simple at first glance but so complex once you go down the rabbit hole. And, because of our place at the bottom of a gravity well, so difficult to fully test until we get some kind of free-flyer SSI G-Lab running.
By the way, we just posted the March-April 1994 SSI Update newsletter at http://ssi.org/reading/ssi-newsletter-archive/ssi-newsletters-1994-march-april/ it has a four page article on Artificial Gravity and Moving Environments that is quite interesting. Dr. Hall has written other documents on the subject (and SSI has other information in newsletters and in conference proceedings) but this quick one is a nice read that may be of interest to folks just getting "up to speed".