Mechanical Space Propulsion. Why isn't this possible?

Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion centers on the concept of mechanical space propulsion, specifically the idea of using rotating spheres to change an object's position in space without traditional propulsion methods. The proposed mechanism involves mass shifting between two spheres to create movement, akin to gyroscopic control in satellites. However, the consensus is that this method cannot achieve net linear acceleration due to Newton's laws, and discussions on "reactionless drives," such as the EMDrive, are prohibited in the forum due to their debunked status.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of Newton's laws of motion
  • Familiarity with gyroscopic principles in spacecraft
  • Knowledge of mass shifting and its implications in mechanics
  • Awareness of the concept of reactionless drives and their controversies
NEXT STEPS
  • Research the principles of angular momentum and its effects on spacecraft orientation
  • Explore the mechanics of control moment gyroscopes and their applications in orbit
  • Investigate the scientific consensus on reactionless drives and related technologies
  • Learn about alternative propulsion methods for space travel, such as ion propulsion
USEFUL FOR

Aerospace engineers, physicists, and enthusiasts interested in propulsion technologies and the limitations of current space travel methods.

kerbtrek
Messages
2
Reaction score
0
So I've been told this is impossible before, and while I understand some of the reasoning as to why, I still can't wrap my head around how this wouldn't work, or rather, what it would do instead of working.

So here's an image of what it looks like:

Its function is this:

Step 1: 'Forward' sphere rotates, flipping the whole panel and other sphere over.
Step 2: Other sphere performs the same action.
Result: Object changes position in space along a specific path.

DOdZWWe.png


Now there may be other things needed, such as mass shifting from one sphere to the other (i.e. a pumped liquid) so that one has more mass than the other and the sphere doesn't spin like a tire stuck in the mud. But is it really completely impossible?

While a mechanism like this would need to move very rapidly to be practical for space travel, it does seem like it could be much more practical in say, re positioning itself in orbit, without fuel, run solely on electricity without any need for gases to exhaust.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
What it would do instead of accelerating (which is what you want from propulsion) is: move along with the center of mass following a straight trajectory at a constant velocity. There are no external forces, so Newton rules !
 
I think you may be thinking in terms of the " spacecraft " sitting on a table rather than free-floating. If you start one of the spheres rotating, you will be adding angular momentum and as such the whole system will rotate in the opposite direction around its center of mass (which is in the middle of the part). This method is loosely similar to how satellite gyroscopes control orientation of the craft in orbit, but a gyroscope cannot impart net linear acceleration of the craft.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Control_moment_gyroscope
 
But if the center of mass is changed to only one sphere at a time (not the center of length) wouldn't that essentially make the rest of the apparatus rotate around the sphere? This is why I spoke of pumping a fluid between the spheres.
 
kerbtrek said:
But if the center of mass is changed to only one sphere at a time (not the center of length) wouldn't that essentially make the rest of the apparatus rotate around the sphere? This is why I spoke of pumping a fluid between the spheres.
Welcome to the PF.

"Reactionless Drives" are on the Forbidden topics list in the PF Rules (see INFO at the top of the page). We do not allow such discussions here, including debunking discussions. The thread is closed.
PF Rules Forbidden Topics said:
EMDrive and other reactionless drives
Articles suggesting that NASA, the Chinese government, or some other governmental actor is working on such a technology frequently appear in the popular press. These claims have been extensively debunked and are not acceptable references under the Physics Forums rules.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 23 ·
Replies
23
Views
5K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
4K
  • · Replies 24 ·
Replies
24
Views
4K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 61 ·
3
Replies
61
Views
11K
  • · Replies 16 ·
Replies
16
Views
4K
  • · Replies 22 ·
Replies
22
Views
4K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
Replies
17
Views
2K
Replies
0
Views
2K