I guess I didn't mean to use the word "turbine"; it could be anything spinning, like a disc. In 0g with no air resistance, you'd only have to start the object spinning and it would stay spinning. You use a magnet apparatus on one side of the disc to generate energy; and a magnet of opposite...
That's a really good analogy; it makes a lot of sense to me now, thanks
Hmm. Why doesn't NASA ever use turbines in space for power as an alternative for solar panels? You'd think that with no air resistance, they'd be able to get them spinning at extremely high speeds and generate tremendous...
I have a few more questions.
If the force maintaining the acceleration of rotation is coming from electromagnetic tension in the structure of the spacecraft itself, wouldn't friction between the particles in the structure eventually stop it from rotating, perhaps turning the tension into...
Well, because what is the difference between "spinning" and standing still in space? Doesn't it all depend on frame of reference?
With the bucket, aren't you continuously applying force with your hand to keep it spinning? But in the case of a rotating spacecraft , force only had to be applied...
How is this possible?
The reason spinning a bucket of water upside down keeps the water inside the bucket is because you're applying force and accelerating the bucket.
But in space, there is nothing 'accelerating' the rotation of a spacecraft , it is merely in continuous Newtonian motion...