It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
originally posted by: aoi3610
Thoughts on the following space station / space craft design with a view to propulsion.
Central hub with rotating outer rung. Outer rung rotates using magnetism, powered electrically from solar or nuclear.
Let’s assume this is large enough that the outer ring houses the living quarters, stores, flight deck and so on. The hub contains the drive to the “motor” that rotates the station / ship.
I would suggest this is a design theme often described in books and so on, specifically due to the centrifugal force that produces the effect of gravity at the correct rotational rate.
Now let’s say we attach 20 ton “weights” to the centre hub, with cables running out through the ring.
What would happen if, when the ship/station was rotating, one of the blocks was released and allowed to drift away using the centrifugal force, until the tether/cable stops its movement.
Wind it back in.
Repeat with the next weight and so on.
Obviously the craft would need to be built to withstand the “tug” each time the tether/cable reached its maximum extent, perhaps a clutch.
Anyway.
Just putting it out there.
I agree with 1947boomer that this doesn't sound like such a good idea. I found some guys on youtube designing space stations using Kerbal space program where the outer ring rotated and the core didn't, but one guy even pointed out how stupid that design was by saying you would have to do an EVA to get from the ring to the core.
originally posted by: aoi3610
Thoughts on the following space station / space craft design with a view to propulsion.
Central hub with rotating outer rung. Outer rung rotates using magnetism, powered electrically from solar or nuclear.
Let’s assume this is large enough that the outer ring houses the living quarters, stores, flight deck and so on. The hub contains the drive to the “motor” that rotates the station / ship.
No to your motor idea, but yes to the artificial gravity idea, in fact this is a youtube promo video for a project to make such an artificial gravity space station, as seen in the second image above:
I would suggest this is a design theme often described in books and so on, specifically due to the centrifugal force that produces the effect of gravity at the correct rotational rate.
I had trouble interpreting this. You mention 20 ton weight so I drew that, you mention cable so I drew that with some slack in it, and you mention ring, so one end of the cable is attached to the weight and the other attached to the ring.
Now let’s say we attach 20 ton “weights” to the centre hub, with cables running out through the ring.
I tried to sketch that, here's what I came up with. When the cable stops the movement, whether the cable is aligned with the axis of the station depends on a number of things, where the attachment point for the cable is on the station when the weight is released, length of cable, etc, so the alignment is just coincidental in this first illustration (I left the spokes out of the drawing to avoid clutter but it would have spokes like the images above):
What would happen if, when the ship/station was rotating, one of the blocks was released and allowed to drift away using the centrifugal force, until the tether/cable stops its movement.
Not quite right. If the weight is attached to the space station, then the rotational axis will be through the center of mass of the combined mass of the weight and the space station.
originally posted by: eManym
If the inertial mass of the weight exceeds the mass of the space station then the space station would rotate around the weight.
Please correct if I am wrong.
Let's re-read 1947boomer's post which you don't yet seem to understand. Until you understand it I don't think further discussion will be put in proper perspective:
originally posted by: aoi3610
a reply to: Arbitrageur
Free energy, no.
Propulsion using no propellant.
Lets assume a 300 ton station, 20 ton blocks, continually powered by the motor in the centre.
Let’s assume the motor spindle is spinning fast as pointed out above re mass of the main ring and the hub. It matters not, all that matters is it’s possible.
1947 boomer, do you want to reconsider that after reviewing the sketch I made? I suspect you visualized cables under constant tension for your assessment, but that's not what the OP described nor what my sketch shows.
originally posted by: 1947boomer
The simple answer is that when the cable is let out the station rotation will slow down. When the cable is pulled back in, the station rotation will speed up.
This will have no effect on propulsion. Changes in angular momentum have no effect on linear momentum.
1947 boomer is right about that part, and now that he can see the sketch he may revise his opinion of momentum transfer based on the sketch. So re-read this to understand what the motor would do. If you're still stuck on this motor, concept, unless you can explain why it doesn't do what 1947boomer said, I'm lost, because I don't think you understand what he's saying.
By the way, stations like you describe are not spun up and down by a motor between the hub and the ring. If you put a motor between the hub and the ring and spun the motor up, the ring would rotate in one direction and the hub would rotate in the other. However, the moment of inertia of the ring would be probably 100 times or more larger than the moment of inertia of the hub, so the hub would have to rotate 100 times faster than the ring in order to conserve angular momentum. That would probably be impossibly fast. Large objects like a station would be spun up and down by using rocket thrusters.
I’m an aerospace engineer and I design spacecraft for a living. That’s why I know this stuff.
OK but it would be nice if you could learn why your motor idea is wrong. 1947boomer's post explains why unless you can clarify what's wrong with his explanation of what the motor would do and why it wouldn't be a good idea.
originally posted by: aoi3610
All I’m trying to determine is if it’s possible to convert rotational energy into acceleration in any particular direction using tethered masses on a rotating object in a vacuum.
That is actually the best idea I've seen so far for traveling to other stars, but the problem is how to do it safely. Project Orion was scrapped after the nuclear test ban treaty, since it would have used nuclear explosions in the atmosphere for propulsion until it escaped earth's gravity. But there's still the idea to use conventional rockets to get outside earth's atmosphere, and then start using the nuclear propulsion once it's far enough away to not irradiate Earth or the space around the Earth.
In my defence the idea of exploding a nuclear device behind a craft to “ride the wave” and push a craft forward is equally crazy.
Let's re-read 1947boomer's post which you don't yet seem to understand. Until you understand it I don't think further discussion will be put in proper perspective:
I suspect you visualized cables under constant tension for your assessment, but that's not what the OP described nor what my sketch shows.
By the way, stations like you describe are not spun up and down by a motor between the hub and the ring. If you put a motor between the hub and the ring and spun the motor up, the ring would rotate in one direction and the hub would rotate in the other. However, the moment of inertia of the ring would be probably 100 times or more larger than the moment of inertia of the hub, so the hub would have to rotate 100 times faster than the ring in order to conserve angular momentum. That would probably be impossibly fast. Large objects like a station would be spun up and down by using rocket thrusters.
The way we would rotate those stations is to put 2 or more rocket motors on the outside of the outer ring, symmetrically spaced, firing tangentially to the ring, as boomer suggested. You can get a glimpse of that concept if you watch the Gateway Project video I posted showing their idea for a rotating space station. If you wanted linear motion instead of rotation, you could use rocket thrusters to move the station linearly in the direction you want, instead of using them to rotate the station, then apply all that stress in the station where the cable attached to the weight attaches to the station. So I don't see the point in using the weight/cable system to do what a rocket thruster can do just as well without all that stress.
As for converting rotational energy to create propulsion, isn't that sort of what cars do, at least the internal combustion engine types? But let's see if 1947 boomer will update his assessment of momentum transfer now that he's seen the sketch I made of what you described, since he claims to be the expert. Then I can give my opinion whether I agree or disagree.
For his prior assessment, I don't think 1947boomer was thinking of the same idea as you because I don't think he read your post carefully enough. He didn't seem to consider the cable stopping the moving weight, he seemed to assume constant tension on the cable, which is a different case.
In any case once you correct your fundamental misunderstanding of how to get the station rotating, I suspect that may kill your idea, once you figure that out.
Because you still don't understand angular momentum:
originally posted by: aoi3610
Fundamentally wrong?
Why is the principal fundamentally wrong please?
What would happen if, when the ship/station was rotating, one of the blocks was released and allowed to drift away using the centrifugal force,
until the tether/cable stops its movement.
Wind it back in.
Central hub with rotating outer ring. The hub contains the drive to the “motor” that rotates the station / ship.