Mechanical Space Propulsion. Why isn't this possible?

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the feasibility of a mechanical space propulsion system that utilizes rotating spheres to change position in space. Participants explore the theoretical implications of such a mechanism, its potential applications in orbit repositioning, and the underlying physics principles involved.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Debate/contested
  • Technical explanation

Main Points Raised

  • One participant describes a proposed mechanism involving two rotating spheres that could change position in space without fuel, suggesting it might be practical for orbital repositioning.
  • Another participant argues that the proposed system would not accelerate but rather move along a straight trajectory at constant velocity due to the absence of external forces, referencing Newton's laws.
  • A different participant points out that while rotating one of the spheres would add angular momentum, it would not result in net linear acceleration, comparing it to how gyroscopes control spacecraft orientation.
  • One participant questions whether changing the center of mass to one sphere at a time could lead to rotation of the apparatus around that sphere, reiterating the idea of using a fluid to shift mass between the spheres.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the viability of the proposed propulsion mechanism, with some asserting its impossibility based on established physics principles while others explore its potential under specific conditions. The discussion remains unresolved regarding the feasibility of the concept.

Contextual Notes

The discussion touches on concepts related to angular momentum, center of mass, and the limitations of reactionless drives, but does not resolve the implications of these principles on the proposed mechanism.

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
13K
  • · Replies 16 ·
Replies
16
Views
4K
  • · Replies 22 ·
Replies
22
Views
4K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
Replies
17
Views
3K
Replies
0
Views
2K