10-20-2015, 06:24 AM
I've just found the book I had mislaid, Heppenheimer's 'Colonies in Space' from 1978, very inspiring read if you can find a copy. I'm quoting bits from pages 153 to 156 here:
"When our 1975 Summer Study got under way in June, we expected our colony design would look pretty much like O'Neill's cylinders. Thus it was a matter of considerable surprise when Wink Winkler, an undergraduate who was studying for admission to medical school, proposed that the proper rotation rate would not be three rpm but one rpm"
O'Neill was about to go to a Congressional hearing, and asked Winkler "Couldn't we do it at two rpm?", and as Winkler didn't say no, that's what he went with.
"Upon O'Neill's return, Wink was outraged that his reccommendation of a one rpm limit should be treated so lightly. His careful research convinced nearly everyone that the colony really should spin at one rpm"
This was the cause of the Stanford Torus design, as a it meant that the colony would need a diameter of slightly over a mile, which ruled out the earlier cylindrical and spherical designs as being too massive.
I'd add that from the point of view of aesthetics, I just love the O'Neill cylinders, but aside from possible issues with regard to their spin stability, I'm certain we'll be building something much smaller first because of the sheer logistics of trying to get that much mass into orbit, never mind not having sorted out how best to go about zero g construction in practice yet.
But anyway, it's that reference to Winklers work on suitable spin rates that makes me dubious about higher spin rates. Granted, I haven't looked terribly hard, but I haven't come across anything that suggests spin rates greater than 1 rpm will be suitable physiologically, and would be interested to see any evidence to the contrary.
"When our 1975 Summer Study got under way in June, we expected our colony design would look pretty much like O'Neill's cylinders. Thus it was a matter of considerable surprise when Wink Winkler, an undergraduate who was studying for admission to medical school, proposed that the proper rotation rate would not be three rpm but one rpm"
O'Neill was about to go to a Congressional hearing, and asked Winkler "Couldn't we do it at two rpm?", and as Winkler didn't say no, that's what he went with.
"Upon O'Neill's return, Wink was outraged that his reccommendation of a one rpm limit should be treated so lightly. His careful research convinced nearly everyone that the colony really should spin at one rpm"
This was the cause of the Stanford Torus design, as a it meant that the colony would need a diameter of slightly over a mile, which ruled out the earlier cylindrical and spherical designs as being too massive.
I'd add that from the point of view of aesthetics, I just love the O'Neill cylinders, but aside from possible issues with regard to their spin stability, I'm certain we'll be building something much smaller first because of the sheer logistics of trying to get that much mass into orbit, never mind not having sorted out how best to go about zero g construction in practice yet.
But anyway, it's that reference to Winklers work on suitable spin rates that makes me dubious about higher spin rates. Granted, I haven't looked terribly hard, but I haven't come across anything that suggests spin rates greater than 1 rpm will be suitable physiologically, and would be interested to see any evidence to the contrary.