10

Assume a hab in outer space with 1 atmosphere pressure and 23ºC (comfortable room temperature),

To simulate gravity, the hab is spun. Acceleration is $\omega^2r$ where $\omega$ is angular velocity in radians/time and r is radius of hab.

Obviously the lower the "gravity", the smaller the hab can be. High rpm's make people sick and less gravity reduces the need for high rpm's. Also the structure doesn't need to be as strong.

I am wondering at what point gravity overcomes surface tension and water flows downhill. Thus the astronauts could enjoy showers, flush toilets, and their sinuses could drain.

HopDavid
  • 15,774
  • 42
  • 78
  • 1
    They probably want their toilettes to be designed to work in microgravity anyway, just in case the rpm thingy somehow fails. But in principle it is an interesting question. – LocalFluff Sep 10 '15 at 21:18
  • 5
    It's not going to be a simple fixed value; the size of a water droplet and the hydrophilia of the surface it's on control whether it flows or not. Some old SF (possibly The Moon Is A Harsh Mistress?) described someone in 1/6g having to basically scrape water off themselves by hand; I don't know how closely the author worked the problem, but it seems plausible. – Russell Borogove Sep 10 '15 at 22:19
  • 7
    As a thought experiment, a whole lake would tend to level itself in even minute gravity, while on Earth water drops do a perfectly fine job of sticking to glass windows in stubborn defiance of gravity. So the question would really have to be formulated in terms of how large a droplet (or body!) of water could form on a vertical glass surface (or some other criterion for "flowing downhill") – Blake Walsh Sep 10 '15 at 23:56
  • 1
    Indeed: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drop_(liquid)#Pendant_drop_test – Russell Borogove Sep 11 '15 at 00:58
  • 2
    To summarize @Blake, the answer could be anywhere to an infinitesimal positive quantity or less (negative). I don't understand this question; it seems more like "how much gravity to make things kinda-sorta normal" versus "how much acceleration does it take for water to flow downhill" (to which the answer is any). – Nick T Sep 11 '15 at 01:49
  • 1
    One interesting aspect of this is that we have to consider source pressure, since it's also this momentum that will keep the water flowing, with or without any gravity. But this gets a bit complicated with space wheels where you can't simply "pump the water up" like with water towers and have gravity work its magic on the pressure. The higher "up" you move it in a space wheel, the less weight it will have. So it will have to be pressurized otherwise. Anyway, I agree that the question asks us to compare contact surface area with volume and alike, but I think it has a practicable answer. – TildalWave Sep 11 '15 at 22:43
  • For perspective, 0-g is a health risk. In 0-g, for example,astronauts lose more than 1% bone mass per month. Having sufficient gravity to avoid that is likely far more important than convenient shower operation. – John1024 Sep 12 '15 at 02:22
  • 1
    So far Russell Borogrove has given a useful link. His pendant drop test has led to helpful links on surface tension, adhesion, cohesion. Studying these I think I can put together some spreadsheets examining different scenarios. – HopDavid Sep 12 '15 at 03:24
  • Some of the other comments seems nonsensical. What does @NickT mean by negative acceleration? Acceleration is a vector quantity having direction and magnitude. If an acceleration north is considered positive, it seems an acceleration north would be negative. Either direction, 9.8 or -9.8 meters/sec^2 would be sufficient for running showers and flushing toilets. – HopDavid Sep 12 '15 at 03:34
  • 1
    As for infinitesmal acceleration being sufficient for running water, that is easily debunked. The acceleration on the I.S.S. from air drag is a measurable quantity. Is this acceleration sufficient for flushing toilets, showers, draining sinuses, etc.? No. – HopDavid Sep 12 '15 at 03:43
  • @John1024 I am not asking about bone or muscie atrophy associated with weightlessness. That is a separate issue. But even in microgravity atrophy can be largely mitiated with exercise. Google Valeri Polyakov. – HopDavid Sep 12 '15 at 03:48
  • Interesting observations @TildalWave If in a cylinder, r will be zero along the axis of the cylinder. So $\omega^2r$ would be zero. If would be easy to imagine water condensing and forming huge droplets along the axis of an O-Neill Cylinder. A torus might be more amenable to water being pumped up and then flowing down. For example if the ceiling has .9 the radius of the floor, water pumped to the ceiling would still enjoy some newtons per kilogram. – HopDavid Sep 12 '15 at 03:54
  • @HopDavid, you are, of course, free to focus your question as you please (and yours is a good question). I was just adding context. By the way: "Since Gemini, exercise has been tried as a way of preventing bone loss, but it has not been shown to be successful." – John1024 Sep 12 '15 at 04:37

1 Answers1

9

Roman aqueduct engineers used a typical gradient of 1:4800, which is about 20cm per km. The equivalent acceleration is about $2 mm/s^2$. So not very much is required to keep the water flowing.

Oscar Bravo
  • 201
  • 3
  • 5
  • 2
    The SSERVI Phobos lecture yesterday brought up issues with uneven surface gravity. On a milligravity object, mobile stuff can easily get enough kinetic energy to go into orbit as they move across the landscape. Water falling from some height and hit some slope could bounce to orbit. But on topic I suppose that a spinning space station does not have similar heterogeneities because the simulated gravity from spinning is concentrically uniform and way larger than real gravity from the station's mass. – LocalFluff Nov 10 '15 at 11:30
  • The surface tension on an aqueduct-filling volume of water is proportionally much less than the surface tension on small droplets. – Russell Borogove Nov 10 '15 at 17:31