Would a grinding machine be a simple and workable propulsion system for an interplanetary spacecraft? The Next CEO of Stack OverflowCould antimatter be used for spacecraft propulsion?How much does it cost to fill an ion thuster with Xenon for a spacecraft propulsion system?Is a spherical rocket design a plausible replacement for current designs today?Pulse Rocket EngineHow does Accion System's TILE propulsion module compare to an equivalently sized Hall effect or an Ion thruster?Liquid shield for spacecraft?Could a spacecraft be propelled by a 180 degree deflection of two charged particle beams?If specific impulse is directly related to exhaust velocity, would a ion post-accelerator improve the Isp of a propulsion system?Could protons in the Sun's solar wind be used to create a photonic laser thruster for a spacecraft?Very Low Gravity Bicycle

If Nick Fury and Coulson already knew about aliens (Kree and Skrull) why did they wait until Thor's appearance to start making weapons?

How to delete every two lines after 3rd lines in a file contains very large number of lines?

The exact meaning of 'Mom made me a sandwich'

Is it professional to write unrelated content in an almost-empty email?

Is it my responsibility to learn a new technology in my own time my employer wants to implement?

Running a General Election and the European Elections together

Legal workarounds for testamentary trust perceived as unfair

Rotate a column

Dominated convergence theorem - what sequence?

Can you be charged for obstruction for refusing to answer questions?

Would this house-rule that treats advantage as a +1 to the roll instead (and disadvantage as -1) and allows them to stack be balanced?

Is it possible to use a NPN BJT as switch, from single power source?

Domestic-to-international connection at Orlando (MCO)

Reference request: Grassmannian and Plucker coordinates in type B, C, D

Poetry, calligrams and TikZ/PStricks challenge

Can MTA send mail via a relay without being told so?

What did we know about the Kessel run before the prequels?

Why do airplanes bank sharply to the right after air-to-air refueling?

Why doesn't UK go for the same deal Japan has with EU to resolve Brexit?

Should I tutor a student who I know has cheated on their homework?

Bartok - Syncopation (1): Meaning of notes in between Grand Staff

Does increasing your ability score affect your main stat?

What was the first Unix version to run on a microcomputer?

How did people program for Consoles with multiple CPUs?



Would a grinding machine be a simple and workable propulsion system for an interplanetary spacecraft?



The Next CEO of Stack OverflowCould antimatter be used for spacecraft propulsion?How much does it cost to fill an ion thuster with Xenon for a spacecraft propulsion system?Is a spherical rocket design a plausible replacement for current designs today?Pulse Rocket EngineHow does Accion System's TILE propulsion module compare to an equivalently sized Hall effect or an Ion thruster?Liquid shield for spacecraft?Could a spacecraft be propelled by a 180 degree deflection of two charged particle beams?If specific impulse is directly related to exhaust velocity, would a ion post-accelerator improve the Isp of a propulsion system?Could protons in the Sun's solar wind be used to create a photonic laser thruster for a spacecraft?Very Low Gravity Bicycle










6












$begingroup$


I am wondering if any space agency has ever considered using a grinding machine as a propulsion system for an interplanetary spacecraft. This system would not be used to lift the spacecraft off of a planet's surface, but rather used solely as an interplanetary/interstellar propulsion system.



The working principle is a simple one (see picture below). This grinding machine would be located at the stern of the spacecraft. Metal shavings flying off of the grinding wheel of this grinding machine would produce a propelling force for the spacecraft via Newton's Third Law of Motion. The amount of propulsion produced at any one time would be achieved by increasing/decreasing the rotational speed of the grinding wheel.



The electrical source for the electric motor of the grinding machine could be a small nuclear power plant on board the spacecraft. The 'fuel' source could be long steel rods or large rocks. A source of rocks could be obtained by mining an asteroid field or a small moon. Lastly, I think that diamond grinding wheels would probably be the most ideal to use due to their durability and longevity.



Would a grinding machine be a simple and workable propulsion system for an interplanetary spacecraft?



enter image description here










share|improve this question











$endgroup$







  • 4




    $begingroup$
    It would need 2 grinding machines for a counter balance.
    $endgroup$
    – Muze
    8 hours ago










  • $begingroup$
    @Muze, thanks for pointing that out
    $endgroup$
    – HRIATEXP
    6 hours ago










  • $begingroup$
    "The amount of propulsion produced at any one time would be achieved by increasing/decreasing the rotational speed of the grinding wheel." -- More likely, by utilizing a duty cycle of 100% on/off, otherwise you're wasting your fuel by not ejecting it with full force.
    $endgroup$
    – Jacob Krall
    1 hour ago















6












$begingroup$


I am wondering if any space agency has ever considered using a grinding machine as a propulsion system for an interplanetary spacecraft. This system would not be used to lift the spacecraft off of a planet's surface, but rather used solely as an interplanetary/interstellar propulsion system.



The working principle is a simple one (see picture below). This grinding machine would be located at the stern of the spacecraft. Metal shavings flying off of the grinding wheel of this grinding machine would produce a propelling force for the spacecraft via Newton's Third Law of Motion. The amount of propulsion produced at any one time would be achieved by increasing/decreasing the rotational speed of the grinding wheel.



The electrical source for the electric motor of the grinding machine could be a small nuclear power plant on board the spacecraft. The 'fuel' source could be long steel rods or large rocks. A source of rocks could be obtained by mining an asteroid field or a small moon. Lastly, I think that diamond grinding wheels would probably be the most ideal to use due to their durability and longevity.



Would a grinding machine be a simple and workable propulsion system for an interplanetary spacecraft?



enter image description here










share|improve this question











$endgroup$







  • 4




    $begingroup$
    It would need 2 grinding machines for a counter balance.
    $endgroup$
    – Muze
    8 hours ago










  • $begingroup$
    @Muze, thanks for pointing that out
    $endgroup$
    – HRIATEXP
    6 hours ago










  • $begingroup$
    "The amount of propulsion produced at any one time would be achieved by increasing/decreasing the rotational speed of the grinding wheel." -- More likely, by utilizing a duty cycle of 100% on/off, otherwise you're wasting your fuel by not ejecting it with full force.
    $endgroup$
    – Jacob Krall
    1 hour ago













6












6








6





$begingroup$


I am wondering if any space agency has ever considered using a grinding machine as a propulsion system for an interplanetary spacecraft. This system would not be used to lift the spacecraft off of a planet's surface, but rather used solely as an interplanetary/interstellar propulsion system.



The working principle is a simple one (see picture below). This grinding machine would be located at the stern of the spacecraft. Metal shavings flying off of the grinding wheel of this grinding machine would produce a propelling force for the spacecraft via Newton's Third Law of Motion. The amount of propulsion produced at any one time would be achieved by increasing/decreasing the rotational speed of the grinding wheel.



The electrical source for the electric motor of the grinding machine could be a small nuclear power plant on board the spacecraft. The 'fuel' source could be long steel rods or large rocks. A source of rocks could be obtained by mining an asteroid field or a small moon. Lastly, I think that diamond grinding wheels would probably be the most ideal to use due to their durability and longevity.



Would a grinding machine be a simple and workable propulsion system for an interplanetary spacecraft?



enter image description here










share|improve this question











$endgroup$




I am wondering if any space agency has ever considered using a grinding machine as a propulsion system for an interplanetary spacecraft. This system would not be used to lift the spacecraft off of a planet's surface, but rather used solely as an interplanetary/interstellar propulsion system.



The working principle is a simple one (see picture below). This grinding machine would be located at the stern of the spacecraft. Metal shavings flying off of the grinding wheel of this grinding machine would produce a propelling force for the spacecraft via Newton's Third Law of Motion. The amount of propulsion produced at any one time would be achieved by increasing/decreasing the rotational speed of the grinding wheel.



The electrical source for the electric motor of the grinding machine could be a small nuclear power plant on board the spacecraft. The 'fuel' source could be long steel rods or large rocks. A source of rocks could be obtained by mining an asteroid field or a small moon. Lastly, I think that diamond grinding wheels would probably be the most ideal to use due to their durability and longevity.



Would a grinding machine be a simple and workable propulsion system for an interplanetary spacecraft?



enter image description here







spacecraft propulsion engine-design physics design-alternative






share|improve this question















share|improve this question













share|improve this question




share|improve this question








edited 6 hours ago







HRIATEXP

















asked 9 hours ago









HRIATEXPHRIATEXP

1876




1876







  • 4




    $begingroup$
    It would need 2 grinding machines for a counter balance.
    $endgroup$
    – Muze
    8 hours ago










  • $begingroup$
    @Muze, thanks for pointing that out
    $endgroup$
    – HRIATEXP
    6 hours ago










  • $begingroup$
    "The amount of propulsion produced at any one time would be achieved by increasing/decreasing the rotational speed of the grinding wheel." -- More likely, by utilizing a duty cycle of 100% on/off, otherwise you're wasting your fuel by not ejecting it with full force.
    $endgroup$
    – Jacob Krall
    1 hour ago












  • 4




    $begingroup$
    It would need 2 grinding machines for a counter balance.
    $endgroup$
    – Muze
    8 hours ago










  • $begingroup$
    @Muze, thanks for pointing that out
    $endgroup$
    – HRIATEXP
    6 hours ago










  • $begingroup$
    "The amount of propulsion produced at any one time would be achieved by increasing/decreasing the rotational speed of the grinding wheel." -- More likely, by utilizing a duty cycle of 100% on/off, otherwise you're wasting your fuel by not ejecting it with full force.
    $endgroup$
    – Jacob Krall
    1 hour ago







4




4




$begingroup$
It would need 2 grinding machines for a counter balance.
$endgroup$
– Muze
8 hours ago




$begingroup$
It would need 2 grinding machines for a counter balance.
$endgroup$
– Muze
8 hours ago












$begingroup$
@Muze, thanks for pointing that out
$endgroup$
– HRIATEXP
6 hours ago




$begingroup$
@Muze, thanks for pointing that out
$endgroup$
– HRIATEXP
6 hours ago












$begingroup$
"The amount of propulsion produced at any one time would be achieved by increasing/decreasing the rotational speed of the grinding wheel." -- More likely, by utilizing a duty cycle of 100% on/off, otherwise you're wasting your fuel by not ejecting it with full force.
$endgroup$
– Jacob Krall
1 hour ago




$begingroup$
"The amount of propulsion produced at any one time would be achieved by increasing/decreasing the rotational speed of the grinding wheel." -- More likely, by utilizing a duty cycle of 100% on/off, otherwise you're wasting your fuel by not ejecting it with full force.
$endgroup$
– Jacob Krall
1 hour ago










4 Answers
4






active

oldest

votes


















5












$begingroup$

I don't know if it has ever been considered by anyone.



In my view, this is not a good idea for at least the following reasons:



  1. It is equivalent to mechanically throwing things retrograde. See this video for an overly simple example. This is obviously not a good way for propulsion, as the specific impulse is very low. Let's talk just about the impulse $$p=mv$$ here, where $m$ is the "reaction mass", i.e. the mass of the material that's being ground, the object being throw backwards, or chemical propellant. $v$ is the velocity of the reaction mass relative to the spacecraft. The velocity $v$ of the sparks is in the order of a few m/s (same velocity as the edge of the grinding wheel. With chemical propellants, it is a few km/s. So, for the same amount $m$ of reaction mass that you carry, classical propulsion gives you a factor of about 1000 more impulse than grinding.

  2. The produced momentum is kind of stochastic. As can be seen in your graphic, the sparks form a cone instead of a straight line. While the upward and the downward motions statistically cancel each other, their vertical components are a waste. While admittedly this also applies to chemical rocket engines (and ion thrusters?), just throwing some stuff overboard would be more efficient in this respect.

Still, I like this question for thinking out of the box. On a side note, reading the title reminded me of this passage of J.D. Clark's book "Ignition!":




F.A. Tsander in Moscow [...] had suggested that an astronaut might stretch his fuel supply by imitating Phileas Fogg. When a fuel tank was emptied, the astronaut could simply grind it up and add the powdered aluminum thus obtaining to the remaining fuel, whose heating value would be correspondingly enhanced!




I think this was actually tried, but found not to work well because the Aluminium particles take too long to combust, i.e. they continue to burn after they have left the combustion chamber. (Some?) Solid rocket propellants are based on Aluminium, though, but that's different.






share|improve this answer









$endgroup$












  • $begingroup$
    Don't make the velocity "a few m/s". The question doesn't constrain the wheel and bar to any particular composition, there's no reason to choose the worst case to base your answer on. Also, cosine losses are often present in real propulsion systems for various reasons, they are not show-stoppers.
    $endgroup$
    – uhoh
    5 hours ago







  • 1




    $begingroup$
    @uhoh To achieve higher velocities, you have to face greater gee forces on the wheel. They can't move too fast or they break apart. The fastest spinning wheels have to be made out of exotic materials, and they tend not to be used for grinding.
    $endgroup$
    – Cort Ammon
    2 hours ago










  • $begingroup$
    @CortAmmon The history of spaceflight parallels the history of new and exotic materials development, they've gone hand-in-hand for the last half-century, so let's not stop now.
    $endgroup$
    – uhoh
    2 hours ago











  • $begingroup$
    @uhoh just saying the difference is 3 orders of magnitude. If that can be overcome, we're in business. The thing is that it's smart to exploit chemical energy. Alternatives are possible, but need extensive development, e.g. ion thrusters. I'd like to know some of the reasons for the "cosine losses".
    $endgroup$
    – Everyday Astronaut
    31 mins ago











  • $begingroup$
    Just to make it clear, I'm well aware of the kind of research that has been conducted on chemical engines, and on ion thrusters, and why they relate to each other the way they do.
    $endgroup$
    – Everyday Astronaut
    15 mins ago


















4












$begingroup$

Good for you, for thinking outside the box! Fearlessly pursuing new ideas is where any new breakthrough comes from.



But rocket exhaust moves at thousands of meters per second -- supersonic speeds. Recalling the formula relating acceleration to velocity for circular motion, a=v^2/r. So, given a velocity of 3,000 meters per second and a wheel radius of, say, 1 meter, the acceleration at the rim would be roughly 9,000,000 m/s^2, or 900,000 times Earth gravity. And angular velocity, v=Rw, or 9,000,000 radians per second. I think you would have trouble spinning the wheel up to that kind of speed, and I think you would have trouble finding a wheel material that wouldn't fly apart.






share|improve this answer









$endgroup$








  • 4




    $begingroup$
    The speed at the rim is the radius times the angular speed. If you cut the radius by a factor of ten the angular speed has to increase by a factor of ten to keep the speed at the rim constant. I believe that brings us up to a hundred million radians per second. I look at those numbers and, well, I think we would probably have to put some work into it yet. It's pretty fast.
    $endgroup$
    – Greg
    5 hours ago










  • $begingroup$
    Okay now I'm going to think about this more myself, thanks!
    $endgroup$
    – uhoh
    5 hours ago










  • $begingroup$
    Okay it looks like I had it bass ackwards; I'm going to go away think about this more, thanks!
    $endgroup$
    – uhoh
    1 hour ago


















1












$begingroup$

Propulsion comes from acceleration of a reaction mass.



In this case the grinding wheel serves two purposes:



  1. separate small bits of the workpiece from bulk at a slow and roughly uniform rate

  2. accelerate those bits by mechanical friction, in a similar way that a tennis ball launcher uses a matched pair of counter-propagating spinning wheels to shoot a box full of tennis balls one at at time in a controlled direction and speed.

As @Muze points out using a matched pair of counter-propagating spinning wheels would be important in spaceflight as well.



Step 1: requires a large amount of work and there's no reason to do that in space. You can produce the particle on the ground, so your propellant "tank" would be a feed system dispensing pellets or powder. They could be suspended in a fluid for easier feed and to avoid electrostatic clumping.



If you have to produce it in space, for example if you are reusing your lower stage as a reaction mass Horace style (Monty Python reference), then you can grind or otherwise form at a lower speed first with a separate wheel. Particles could be remelted in order to make them spherical, and then size-sorted for the following step.



Step 2: would conceptually be accomplished with a mechanism similar to that of a tennis ball launcher. Two counter-propagating wheels with the particle feed introduced in the small gap between the two wheels' surfaces. The particles would have to be monodipserse, meaning all of a fairly uniform size, and slightly smaller than the gap for good friction. Either the particles or the wheels would have to be elastically compressible enough so that there's a good grip for acceleration, and yet the surfaces should not be readily damaged during the process.



You could also very slightly incline the wheels such that if you had a sorted range of particle sizes they can all be introduced at the appropriate gap width.



However, as @Greg points out getting your wheels to spin at mach 10 or faster (for a (mass-)specific impulse or Isp of say 300 or so) is a real materials problem.



One possibility for propellant would be a maximal concentration (essentially HCP) liquid suspension of latex or polymer spheres which can be obtained highly monodisperse with sufficient money. If you don't have a lot of room for propellant, then perhaps metallic or metal oxide or nitride nanospheres can be produced by pyrolysis.



enter image description here Horiba Scientific



GIF from Tennis ball machine DIY - part 1 a better view of a similar mechanism can be seen in Tennis Tutor Ball Machine mechanics in operation.



enter image description here






share|improve this answer











$endgroup$




















    0












    $begingroup$

    The main engineering challenge in implementing your proposal is that in order to be competitive with a chemical rocket engine, the grinding wheel must rotate at an extremely high velocity. A typical chemical rocket might have a specific impulse between about 250 and 450 seconds; therefore, the exhaust velocity is about 2500-4500 m/s. In a competitive propulsion system, the edge of the wheel must move at least this fast.



    So the real question is: can we build a grinding wheel strong enough to rotate at this velocity without exploding?



    For now, the answer is no. The tensile stress at the edge of the wheel is $rho r^2 omega^2 = rho v^2$, where $rho$ is the density, $r$ is the radius, $omega$ is the angular velocity, and $v$ is the velocity. Thus, the velocity at which the edge rotates is limited to $v < sqrtTS / rho$, where $TS$ is the ultimate tensile strength of the material the grinding wheel is composed of. Of all materials that we currently know how to produce at macroscopic scales, carbon fiber has the highest ultimate tensile strength per unit mass at about 4000 kN-m/kg. This gives a maximum velocity of 2000 m/s. This is less than the exhaust velocity of even a simple, relatively inefficient chemical rocket.



    However, suppose that someone invents a way of mass-producing carbon nanotubes with an ultimate tensile strength of 60 GPa and a density of 1 g/cm$^3$. Then we could theoretically achieve an exhaust velocity of over 7500 m/s, which is excellent. In this scenario, your grinding wheel actually starts to look like a really good idea.






    share|improve this answer










    New contributor




    Thorondor is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
    Check out our Code of Conduct.






    $endgroup$












    • $begingroup$
      None of the other answers are dismissive at all, as far as I can see.
      $endgroup$
      – Everyday Astronaut
      13 mins ago










    • $begingroup$
      @EverydayAstronaut fair enough, I removed that sentence. I only meant that the currently most upvoted answers simply say the grinding wheel is not a useful propulsion system, without actually calculating its performance.
      $endgroup$
      – Thorondor
      3 mins ago











    Your Answer





    StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function ()
    return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function ()
    StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix)
    StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\\(","\\)"]]);
    );
    );
    , "mathjax-editing");

    StackExchange.ready(function()
    var channelOptions =
    tags: "".split(" "),
    id: "508"
    ;
    initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

    StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function()
    // Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
    if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled)
    StackExchange.using("snippets", function()
    createEditor();
    );

    else
    createEditor();

    );

    function createEditor()
    StackExchange.prepareEditor(
    heartbeatType: 'answer',
    autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
    convertImagesToLinks: false,
    noModals: true,
    showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
    reputationToPostImages: null,
    bindNavPrevention: true,
    postfix: "",
    imageUploader:
    brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
    contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
    allowUrls: true
    ,
    noCode: true, onDemand: true,
    discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
    ,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
    );



    );













    draft saved

    draft discarded


















    StackExchange.ready(
    function ()
    StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fspace.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f35177%2fwould-a-grinding-machine-be-a-simple-and-workable-propulsion-system-for-an-inter%23new-answer', 'question_page');

    );

    Post as a guest















    Required, but never shown

























    4 Answers
    4






    active

    oldest

    votes








    4 Answers
    4






    active

    oldest

    votes









    active

    oldest

    votes






    active

    oldest

    votes









    5












    $begingroup$

    I don't know if it has ever been considered by anyone.



    In my view, this is not a good idea for at least the following reasons:



    1. It is equivalent to mechanically throwing things retrograde. See this video for an overly simple example. This is obviously not a good way for propulsion, as the specific impulse is very low. Let's talk just about the impulse $$p=mv$$ here, where $m$ is the "reaction mass", i.e. the mass of the material that's being ground, the object being throw backwards, or chemical propellant. $v$ is the velocity of the reaction mass relative to the spacecraft. The velocity $v$ of the sparks is in the order of a few m/s (same velocity as the edge of the grinding wheel. With chemical propellants, it is a few km/s. So, for the same amount $m$ of reaction mass that you carry, classical propulsion gives you a factor of about 1000 more impulse than grinding.

    2. The produced momentum is kind of stochastic. As can be seen in your graphic, the sparks form a cone instead of a straight line. While the upward and the downward motions statistically cancel each other, their vertical components are a waste. While admittedly this also applies to chemical rocket engines (and ion thrusters?), just throwing some stuff overboard would be more efficient in this respect.

    Still, I like this question for thinking out of the box. On a side note, reading the title reminded me of this passage of J.D. Clark's book "Ignition!":




    F.A. Tsander in Moscow [...] had suggested that an astronaut might stretch his fuel supply by imitating Phileas Fogg. When a fuel tank was emptied, the astronaut could simply grind it up and add the powdered aluminum thus obtaining to the remaining fuel, whose heating value would be correspondingly enhanced!




    I think this was actually tried, but found not to work well because the Aluminium particles take too long to combust, i.e. they continue to burn after they have left the combustion chamber. (Some?) Solid rocket propellants are based on Aluminium, though, but that's different.






    share|improve this answer









    $endgroup$












    • $begingroup$
      Don't make the velocity "a few m/s". The question doesn't constrain the wheel and bar to any particular composition, there's no reason to choose the worst case to base your answer on. Also, cosine losses are often present in real propulsion systems for various reasons, they are not show-stoppers.
      $endgroup$
      – uhoh
      5 hours ago







    • 1




      $begingroup$
      @uhoh To achieve higher velocities, you have to face greater gee forces on the wheel. They can't move too fast or they break apart. The fastest spinning wheels have to be made out of exotic materials, and they tend not to be used for grinding.
      $endgroup$
      – Cort Ammon
      2 hours ago










    • $begingroup$
      @CortAmmon The history of spaceflight parallels the history of new and exotic materials development, they've gone hand-in-hand for the last half-century, so let's not stop now.
      $endgroup$
      – uhoh
      2 hours ago











    • $begingroup$
      @uhoh just saying the difference is 3 orders of magnitude. If that can be overcome, we're in business. The thing is that it's smart to exploit chemical energy. Alternatives are possible, but need extensive development, e.g. ion thrusters. I'd like to know some of the reasons for the "cosine losses".
      $endgroup$
      – Everyday Astronaut
      31 mins ago











    • $begingroup$
      Just to make it clear, I'm well aware of the kind of research that has been conducted on chemical engines, and on ion thrusters, and why they relate to each other the way they do.
      $endgroup$
      – Everyday Astronaut
      15 mins ago















    5












    $begingroup$

    I don't know if it has ever been considered by anyone.



    In my view, this is not a good idea for at least the following reasons:



    1. It is equivalent to mechanically throwing things retrograde. See this video for an overly simple example. This is obviously not a good way for propulsion, as the specific impulse is very low. Let's talk just about the impulse $$p=mv$$ here, where $m$ is the "reaction mass", i.e. the mass of the material that's being ground, the object being throw backwards, or chemical propellant. $v$ is the velocity of the reaction mass relative to the spacecraft. The velocity $v$ of the sparks is in the order of a few m/s (same velocity as the edge of the grinding wheel. With chemical propellants, it is a few km/s. So, for the same amount $m$ of reaction mass that you carry, classical propulsion gives you a factor of about 1000 more impulse than grinding.

    2. The produced momentum is kind of stochastic. As can be seen in your graphic, the sparks form a cone instead of a straight line. While the upward and the downward motions statistically cancel each other, their vertical components are a waste. While admittedly this also applies to chemical rocket engines (and ion thrusters?), just throwing some stuff overboard would be more efficient in this respect.

    Still, I like this question for thinking out of the box. On a side note, reading the title reminded me of this passage of J.D. Clark's book "Ignition!":




    F.A. Tsander in Moscow [...] had suggested that an astronaut might stretch his fuel supply by imitating Phileas Fogg. When a fuel tank was emptied, the astronaut could simply grind it up and add the powdered aluminum thus obtaining to the remaining fuel, whose heating value would be correspondingly enhanced!




    I think this was actually tried, but found not to work well because the Aluminium particles take too long to combust, i.e. they continue to burn after they have left the combustion chamber. (Some?) Solid rocket propellants are based on Aluminium, though, but that's different.






    share|improve this answer









    $endgroup$












    • $begingroup$
      Don't make the velocity "a few m/s". The question doesn't constrain the wheel and bar to any particular composition, there's no reason to choose the worst case to base your answer on. Also, cosine losses are often present in real propulsion systems for various reasons, they are not show-stoppers.
      $endgroup$
      – uhoh
      5 hours ago







    • 1




      $begingroup$
      @uhoh To achieve higher velocities, you have to face greater gee forces on the wheel. They can't move too fast or they break apart. The fastest spinning wheels have to be made out of exotic materials, and they tend not to be used for grinding.
      $endgroup$
      – Cort Ammon
      2 hours ago










    • $begingroup$
      @CortAmmon The history of spaceflight parallels the history of new and exotic materials development, they've gone hand-in-hand for the last half-century, so let's not stop now.
      $endgroup$
      – uhoh
      2 hours ago











    • $begingroup$
      @uhoh just saying the difference is 3 orders of magnitude. If that can be overcome, we're in business. The thing is that it's smart to exploit chemical energy. Alternatives are possible, but need extensive development, e.g. ion thrusters. I'd like to know some of the reasons for the "cosine losses".
      $endgroup$
      – Everyday Astronaut
      31 mins ago











    • $begingroup$
      Just to make it clear, I'm well aware of the kind of research that has been conducted on chemical engines, and on ion thrusters, and why they relate to each other the way they do.
      $endgroup$
      – Everyday Astronaut
      15 mins ago













    5












    5








    5





    $begingroup$

    I don't know if it has ever been considered by anyone.



    In my view, this is not a good idea for at least the following reasons:



    1. It is equivalent to mechanically throwing things retrograde. See this video for an overly simple example. This is obviously not a good way for propulsion, as the specific impulse is very low. Let's talk just about the impulse $$p=mv$$ here, where $m$ is the "reaction mass", i.e. the mass of the material that's being ground, the object being throw backwards, or chemical propellant. $v$ is the velocity of the reaction mass relative to the spacecraft. The velocity $v$ of the sparks is in the order of a few m/s (same velocity as the edge of the grinding wheel. With chemical propellants, it is a few km/s. So, for the same amount $m$ of reaction mass that you carry, classical propulsion gives you a factor of about 1000 more impulse than grinding.

    2. The produced momentum is kind of stochastic. As can be seen in your graphic, the sparks form a cone instead of a straight line. While the upward and the downward motions statistically cancel each other, their vertical components are a waste. While admittedly this also applies to chemical rocket engines (and ion thrusters?), just throwing some stuff overboard would be more efficient in this respect.

    Still, I like this question for thinking out of the box. On a side note, reading the title reminded me of this passage of J.D. Clark's book "Ignition!":




    F.A. Tsander in Moscow [...] had suggested that an astronaut might stretch his fuel supply by imitating Phileas Fogg. When a fuel tank was emptied, the astronaut could simply grind it up and add the powdered aluminum thus obtaining to the remaining fuel, whose heating value would be correspondingly enhanced!




    I think this was actually tried, but found not to work well because the Aluminium particles take too long to combust, i.e. they continue to burn after they have left the combustion chamber. (Some?) Solid rocket propellants are based on Aluminium, though, but that's different.






    share|improve this answer









    $endgroup$



    I don't know if it has ever been considered by anyone.



    In my view, this is not a good idea for at least the following reasons:



    1. It is equivalent to mechanically throwing things retrograde. See this video for an overly simple example. This is obviously not a good way for propulsion, as the specific impulse is very low. Let's talk just about the impulse $$p=mv$$ here, where $m$ is the "reaction mass", i.e. the mass of the material that's being ground, the object being throw backwards, or chemical propellant. $v$ is the velocity of the reaction mass relative to the spacecraft. The velocity $v$ of the sparks is in the order of a few m/s (same velocity as the edge of the grinding wheel. With chemical propellants, it is a few km/s. So, for the same amount $m$ of reaction mass that you carry, classical propulsion gives you a factor of about 1000 more impulse than grinding.

    2. The produced momentum is kind of stochastic. As can be seen in your graphic, the sparks form a cone instead of a straight line. While the upward and the downward motions statistically cancel each other, their vertical components are a waste. While admittedly this also applies to chemical rocket engines (and ion thrusters?), just throwing some stuff overboard would be more efficient in this respect.

    Still, I like this question for thinking out of the box. On a side note, reading the title reminded me of this passage of J.D. Clark's book "Ignition!":




    F.A. Tsander in Moscow [...] had suggested that an astronaut might stretch his fuel supply by imitating Phileas Fogg. When a fuel tank was emptied, the astronaut could simply grind it up and add the powdered aluminum thus obtaining to the remaining fuel, whose heating value would be correspondingly enhanced!




    I think this was actually tried, but found not to work well because the Aluminium particles take too long to combust, i.e. they continue to burn after they have left the combustion chamber. (Some?) Solid rocket propellants are based on Aluminium, though, but that's different.







    share|improve this answer












    share|improve this answer



    share|improve this answer










    answered 7 hours ago









    Everyday AstronautEveryday Astronaut

    2,244832




    2,244832











    • $begingroup$
      Don't make the velocity "a few m/s". The question doesn't constrain the wheel and bar to any particular composition, there's no reason to choose the worst case to base your answer on. Also, cosine losses are often present in real propulsion systems for various reasons, they are not show-stoppers.
      $endgroup$
      – uhoh
      5 hours ago







    • 1




      $begingroup$
      @uhoh To achieve higher velocities, you have to face greater gee forces on the wheel. They can't move too fast or they break apart. The fastest spinning wheels have to be made out of exotic materials, and they tend not to be used for grinding.
      $endgroup$
      – Cort Ammon
      2 hours ago










    • $begingroup$
      @CortAmmon The history of spaceflight parallels the history of new and exotic materials development, they've gone hand-in-hand for the last half-century, so let's not stop now.
      $endgroup$
      – uhoh
      2 hours ago











    • $begingroup$
      @uhoh just saying the difference is 3 orders of magnitude. If that can be overcome, we're in business. The thing is that it's smart to exploit chemical energy. Alternatives are possible, but need extensive development, e.g. ion thrusters. I'd like to know some of the reasons for the "cosine losses".
      $endgroup$
      – Everyday Astronaut
      31 mins ago











    • $begingroup$
      Just to make it clear, I'm well aware of the kind of research that has been conducted on chemical engines, and on ion thrusters, and why they relate to each other the way they do.
      $endgroup$
      – Everyday Astronaut
      15 mins ago
















    • $begingroup$
      Don't make the velocity "a few m/s". The question doesn't constrain the wheel and bar to any particular composition, there's no reason to choose the worst case to base your answer on. Also, cosine losses are often present in real propulsion systems for various reasons, they are not show-stoppers.
      $endgroup$
      – uhoh
      5 hours ago







    • 1




      $begingroup$
      @uhoh To achieve higher velocities, you have to face greater gee forces on the wheel. They can't move too fast or they break apart. The fastest spinning wheels have to be made out of exotic materials, and they tend not to be used for grinding.
      $endgroup$
      – Cort Ammon
      2 hours ago










    • $begingroup$
      @CortAmmon The history of spaceflight parallels the history of new and exotic materials development, they've gone hand-in-hand for the last half-century, so let's not stop now.
      $endgroup$
      – uhoh
      2 hours ago











    • $begingroup$
      @uhoh just saying the difference is 3 orders of magnitude. If that can be overcome, we're in business. The thing is that it's smart to exploit chemical energy. Alternatives are possible, but need extensive development, e.g. ion thrusters. I'd like to know some of the reasons for the "cosine losses".
      $endgroup$
      – Everyday Astronaut
      31 mins ago











    • $begingroup$
      Just to make it clear, I'm well aware of the kind of research that has been conducted on chemical engines, and on ion thrusters, and why they relate to each other the way they do.
      $endgroup$
      – Everyday Astronaut
      15 mins ago















    $begingroup$
    Don't make the velocity "a few m/s". The question doesn't constrain the wheel and bar to any particular composition, there's no reason to choose the worst case to base your answer on. Also, cosine losses are often present in real propulsion systems for various reasons, they are not show-stoppers.
    $endgroup$
    – uhoh
    5 hours ago





    $begingroup$
    Don't make the velocity "a few m/s". The question doesn't constrain the wheel and bar to any particular composition, there's no reason to choose the worst case to base your answer on. Also, cosine losses are often present in real propulsion systems for various reasons, they are not show-stoppers.
    $endgroup$
    – uhoh
    5 hours ago





    1




    1




    $begingroup$
    @uhoh To achieve higher velocities, you have to face greater gee forces on the wheel. They can't move too fast or they break apart. The fastest spinning wheels have to be made out of exotic materials, and they tend not to be used for grinding.
    $endgroup$
    – Cort Ammon
    2 hours ago




    $begingroup$
    @uhoh To achieve higher velocities, you have to face greater gee forces on the wheel. They can't move too fast or they break apart. The fastest spinning wheels have to be made out of exotic materials, and they tend not to be used for grinding.
    $endgroup$
    – Cort Ammon
    2 hours ago












    $begingroup$
    @CortAmmon The history of spaceflight parallels the history of new and exotic materials development, they've gone hand-in-hand for the last half-century, so let's not stop now.
    $endgroup$
    – uhoh
    2 hours ago





    $begingroup$
    @CortAmmon The history of spaceflight parallels the history of new and exotic materials development, they've gone hand-in-hand for the last half-century, so let's not stop now.
    $endgroup$
    – uhoh
    2 hours ago













    $begingroup$
    @uhoh just saying the difference is 3 orders of magnitude. If that can be overcome, we're in business. The thing is that it's smart to exploit chemical energy. Alternatives are possible, but need extensive development, e.g. ion thrusters. I'd like to know some of the reasons for the "cosine losses".
    $endgroup$
    – Everyday Astronaut
    31 mins ago





    $begingroup$
    @uhoh just saying the difference is 3 orders of magnitude. If that can be overcome, we're in business. The thing is that it's smart to exploit chemical energy. Alternatives are possible, but need extensive development, e.g. ion thrusters. I'd like to know some of the reasons for the "cosine losses".
    $endgroup$
    – Everyday Astronaut
    31 mins ago













    $begingroup$
    Just to make it clear, I'm well aware of the kind of research that has been conducted on chemical engines, and on ion thrusters, and why they relate to each other the way they do.
    $endgroup$
    – Everyday Astronaut
    15 mins ago




    $begingroup$
    Just to make it clear, I'm well aware of the kind of research that has been conducted on chemical engines, and on ion thrusters, and why they relate to each other the way they do.
    $endgroup$
    – Everyday Astronaut
    15 mins ago











    4












    $begingroup$

    Good for you, for thinking outside the box! Fearlessly pursuing new ideas is where any new breakthrough comes from.



    But rocket exhaust moves at thousands of meters per second -- supersonic speeds. Recalling the formula relating acceleration to velocity for circular motion, a=v^2/r. So, given a velocity of 3,000 meters per second and a wheel radius of, say, 1 meter, the acceleration at the rim would be roughly 9,000,000 m/s^2, or 900,000 times Earth gravity. And angular velocity, v=Rw, or 9,000,000 radians per second. I think you would have trouble spinning the wheel up to that kind of speed, and I think you would have trouble finding a wheel material that wouldn't fly apart.






    share|improve this answer









    $endgroup$








    • 4




      $begingroup$
      The speed at the rim is the radius times the angular speed. If you cut the radius by a factor of ten the angular speed has to increase by a factor of ten to keep the speed at the rim constant. I believe that brings us up to a hundred million radians per second. I look at those numbers and, well, I think we would probably have to put some work into it yet. It's pretty fast.
      $endgroup$
      – Greg
      5 hours ago










    • $begingroup$
      Okay now I'm going to think about this more myself, thanks!
      $endgroup$
      – uhoh
      5 hours ago










    • $begingroup$
      Okay it looks like I had it bass ackwards; I'm going to go away think about this more, thanks!
      $endgroup$
      – uhoh
      1 hour ago















    4












    $begingroup$

    Good for you, for thinking outside the box! Fearlessly pursuing new ideas is where any new breakthrough comes from.



    But rocket exhaust moves at thousands of meters per second -- supersonic speeds. Recalling the formula relating acceleration to velocity for circular motion, a=v^2/r. So, given a velocity of 3,000 meters per second and a wheel radius of, say, 1 meter, the acceleration at the rim would be roughly 9,000,000 m/s^2, or 900,000 times Earth gravity. And angular velocity, v=Rw, or 9,000,000 radians per second. I think you would have trouble spinning the wheel up to that kind of speed, and I think you would have trouble finding a wheel material that wouldn't fly apart.






    share|improve this answer









    $endgroup$








    • 4




      $begingroup$
      The speed at the rim is the radius times the angular speed. If you cut the radius by a factor of ten the angular speed has to increase by a factor of ten to keep the speed at the rim constant. I believe that brings us up to a hundred million radians per second. I look at those numbers and, well, I think we would probably have to put some work into it yet. It's pretty fast.
      $endgroup$
      – Greg
      5 hours ago










    • $begingroup$
      Okay now I'm going to think about this more myself, thanks!
      $endgroup$
      – uhoh
      5 hours ago










    • $begingroup$
      Okay it looks like I had it bass ackwards; I'm going to go away think about this more, thanks!
      $endgroup$
      – uhoh
      1 hour ago













    4












    4








    4





    $begingroup$

    Good for you, for thinking outside the box! Fearlessly pursuing new ideas is where any new breakthrough comes from.



    But rocket exhaust moves at thousands of meters per second -- supersonic speeds. Recalling the formula relating acceleration to velocity for circular motion, a=v^2/r. So, given a velocity of 3,000 meters per second and a wheel radius of, say, 1 meter, the acceleration at the rim would be roughly 9,000,000 m/s^2, or 900,000 times Earth gravity. And angular velocity, v=Rw, or 9,000,000 radians per second. I think you would have trouble spinning the wheel up to that kind of speed, and I think you would have trouble finding a wheel material that wouldn't fly apart.






    share|improve this answer









    $endgroup$



    Good for you, for thinking outside the box! Fearlessly pursuing new ideas is where any new breakthrough comes from.



    But rocket exhaust moves at thousands of meters per second -- supersonic speeds. Recalling the formula relating acceleration to velocity for circular motion, a=v^2/r. So, given a velocity of 3,000 meters per second and a wheel radius of, say, 1 meter, the acceleration at the rim would be roughly 9,000,000 m/s^2, or 900,000 times Earth gravity. And angular velocity, v=Rw, or 9,000,000 radians per second. I think you would have trouble spinning the wheel up to that kind of speed, and I think you would have trouble finding a wheel material that wouldn't fly apart.







    share|improve this answer












    share|improve this answer



    share|improve this answer










    answered 7 hours ago









    GregGreg

    89938




    89938







    • 4




      $begingroup$
      The speed at the rim is the radius times the angular speed. If you cut the radius by a factor of ten the angular speed has to increase by a factor of ten to keep the speed at the rim constant. I believe that brings us up to a hundred million radians per second. I look at those numbers and, well, I think we would probably have to put some work into it yet. It's pretty fast.
      $endgroup$
      – Greg
      5 hours ago










    • $begingroup$
      Okay now I'm going to think about this more myself, thanks!
      $endgroup$
      – uhoh
      5 hours ago










    • $begingroup$
      Okay it looks like I had it bass ackwards; I'm going to go away think about this more, thanks!
      $endgroup$
      – uhoh
      1 hour ago












    • 4




      $begingroup$
      The speed at the rim is the radius times the angular speed. If you cut the radius by a factor of ten the angular speed has to increase by a factor of ten to keep the speed at the rim constant. I believe that brings us up to a hundred million radians per second. I look at those numbers and, well, I think we would probably have to put some work into it yet. It's pretty fast.
      $endgroup$
      – Greg
      5 hours ago










    • $begingroup$
      Okay now I'm going to think about this more myself, thanks!
      $endgroup$
      – uhoh
      5 hours ago










    • $begingroup$
      Okay it looks like I had it bass ackwards; I'm going to go away think about this more, thanks!
      $endgroup$
      – uhoh
      1 hour ago







    4




    4




    $begingroup$
    The speed at the rim is the radius times the angular speed. If you cut the radius by a factor of ten the angular speed has to increase by a factor of ten to keep the speed at the rim constant. I believe that brings us up to a hundred million radians per second. I look at those numbers and, well, I think we would probably have to put some work into it yet. It's pretty fast.
    $endgroup$
    – Greg
    5 hours ago




    $begingroup$
    The speed at the rim is the radius times the angular speed. If you cut the radius by a factor of ten the angular speed has to increase by a factor of ten to keep the speed at the rim constant. I believe that brings us up to a hundred million radians per second. I look at those numbers and, well, I think we would probably have to put some work into it yet. It's pretty fast.
    $endgroup$
    – Greg
    5 hours ago












    $begingroup$
    Okay now I'm going to think about this more myself, thanks!
    $endgroup$
    – uhoh
    5 hours ago




    $begingroup$
    Okay now I'm going to think about this more myself, thanks!
    $endgroup$
    – uhoh
    5 hours ago












    $begingroup$
    Okay it looks like I had it bass ackwards; I'm going to go away think about this more, thanks!
    $endgroup$
    – uhoh
    1 hour ago




    $begingroup$
    Okay it looks like I had it bass ackwards; I'm going to go away think about this more, thanks!
    $endgroup$
    – uhoh
    1 hour ago











    1












    $begingroup$

    Propulsion comes from acceleration of a reaction mass.



    In this case the grinding wheel serves two purposes:



    1. separate small bits of the workpiece from bulk at a slow and roughly uniform rate

    2. accelerate those bits by mechanical friction, in a similar way that a tennis ball launcher uses a matched pair of counter-propagating spinning wheels to shoot a box full of tennis balls one at at time in a controlled direction and speed.

    As @Muze points out using a matched pair of counter-propagating spinning wheels would be important in spaceflight as well.



    Step 1: requires a large amount of work and there's no reason to do that in space. You can produce the particle on the ground, so your propellant "tank" would be a feed system dispensing pellets or powder. They could be suspended in a fluid for easier feed and to avoid electrostatic clumping.



    If you have to produce it in space, for example if you are reusing your lower stage as a reaction mass Horace style (Monty Python reference), then you can grind or otherwise form at a lower speed first with a separate wheel. Particles could be remelted in order to make them spherical, and then size-sorted for the following step.



    Step 2: would conceptually be accomplished with a mechanism similar to that of a tennis ball launcher. Two counter-propagating wheels with the particle feed introduced in the small gap between the two wheels' surfaces. The particles would have to be monodipserse, meaning all of a fairly uniform size, and slightly smaller than the gap for good friction. Either the particles or the wheels would have to be elastically compressible enough so that there's a good grip for acceleration, and yet the surfaces should not be readily damaged during the process.



    You could also very slightly incline the wheels such that if you had a sorted range of particle sizes they can all be introduced at the appropriate gap width.



    However, as @Greg points out getting your wheels to spin at mach 10 or faster (for a (mass-)specific impulse or Isp of say 300 or so) is a real materials problem.



    One possibility for propellant would be a maximal concentration (essentially HCP) liquid suspension of latex or polymer spheres which can be obtained highly monodisperse with sufficient money. If you don't have a lot of room for propellant, then perhaps metallic or metal oxide or nitride nanospheres can be produced by pyrolysis.



    enter image description here Horiba Scientific



    GIF from Tennis ball machine DIY - part 1 a better view of a similar mechanism can be seen in Tennis Tutor Ball Machine mechanics in operation.



    enter image description here






    share|improve this answer











    $endgroup$

















      1












      $begingroup$

      Propulsion comes from acceleration of a reaction mass.



      In this case the grinding wheel serves two purposes:



      1. separate small bits of the workpiece from bulk at a slow and roughly uniform rate

      2. accelerate those bits by mechanical friction, in a similar way that a tennis ball launcher uses a matched pair of counter-propagating spinning wheels to shoot a box full of tennis balls one at at time in a controlled direction and speed.

      As @Muze points out using a matched pair of counter-propagating spinning wheels would be important in spaceflight as well.



      Step 1: requires a large amount of work and there's no reason to do that in space. You can produce the particle on the ground, so your propellant "tank" would be a feed system dispensing pellets or powder. They could be suspended in a fluid for easier feed and to avoid electrostatic clumping.



      If you have to produce it in space, for example if you are reusing your lower stage as a reaction mass Horace style (Monty Python reference), then you can grind or otherwise form at a lower speed first with a separate wheel. Particles could be remelted in order to make them spherical, and then size-sorted for the following step.



      Step 2: would conceptually be accomplished with a mechanism similar to that of a tennis ball launcher. Two counter-propagating wheels with the particle feed introduced in the small gap between the two wheels' surfaces. The particles would have to be monodipserse, meaning all of a fairly uniform size, and slightly smaller than the gap for good friction. Either the particles or the wheels would have to be elastically compressible enough so that there's a good grip for acceleration, and yet the surfaces should not be readily damaged during the process.



      You could also very slightly incline the wheels such that if you had a sorted range of particle sizes they can all be introduced at the appropriate gap width.



      However, as @Greg points out getting your wheels to spin at mach 10 or faster (for a (mass-)specific impulse or Isp of say 300 or so) is a real materials problem.



      One possibility for propellant would be a maximal concentration (essentially HCP) liquid suspension of latex or polymer spheres which can be obtained highly monodisperse with sufficient money. If you don't have a lot of room for propellant, then perhaps metallic or metal oxide or nitride nanospheres can be produced by pyrolysis.



      enter image description here Horiba Scientific



      GIF from Tennis ball machine DIY - part 1 a better view of a similar mechanism can be seen in Tennis Tutor Ball Machine mechanics in operation.



      enter image description here






      share|improve this answer











      $endgroup$















        1












        1








        1





        $begingroup$

        Propulsion comes from acceleration of a reaction mass.



        In this case the grinding wheel serves two purposes:



        1. separate small bits of the workpiece from bulk at a slow and roughly uniform rate

        2. accelerate those bits by mechanical friction, in a similar way that a tennis ball launcher uses a matched pair of counter-propagating spinning wheels to shoot a box full of tennis balls one at at time in a controlled direction and speed.

        As @Muze points out using a matched pair of counter-propagating spinning wheels would be important in spaceflight as well.



        Step 1: requires a large amount of work and there's no reason to do that in space. You can produce the particle on the ground, so your propellant "tank" would be a feed system dispensing pellets or powder. They could be suspended in a fluid for easier feed and to avoid electrostatic clumping.



        If you have to produce it in space, for example if you are reusing your lower stage as a reaction mass Horace style (Monty Python reference), then you can grind or otherwise form at a lower speed first with a separate wheel. Particles could be remelted in order to make them spherical, and then size-sorted for the following step.



        Step 2: would conceptually be accomplished with a mechanism similar to that of a tennis ball launcher. Two counter-propagating wheels with the particle feed introduced in the small gap between the two wheels' surfaces. The particles would have to be monodipserse, meaning all of a fairly uniform size, and slightly smaller than the gap for good friction. Either the particles or the wheels would have to be elastically compressible enough so that there's a good grip for acceleration, and yet the surfaces should not be readily damaged during the process.



        You could also very slightly incline the wheels such that if you had a sorted range of particle sizes they can all be introduced at the appropriate gap width.



        However, as @Greg points out getting your wheels to spin at mach 10 or faster (for a (mass-)specific impulse or Isp of say 300 or so) is a real materials problem.



        One possibility for propellant would be a maximal concentration (essentially HCP) liquid suspension of latex or polymer spheres which can be obtained highly monodisperse with sufficient money. If you don't have a lot of room for propellant, then perhaps metallic or metal oxide or nitride nanospheres can be produced by pyrolysis.



        enter image description here Horiba Scientific



        GIF from Tennis ball machine DIY - part 1 a better view of a similar mechanism can be seen in Tennis Tutor Ball Machine mechanics in operation.



        enter image description here






        share|improve this answer











        $endgroup$



        Propulsion comes from acceleration of a reaction mass.



        In this case the grinding wheel serves two purposes:



        1. separate small bits of the workpiece from bulk at a slow and roughly uniform rate

        2. accelerate those bits by mechanical friction, in a similar way that a tennis ball launcher uses a matched pair of counter-propagating spinning wheels to shoot a box full of tennis balls one at at time in a controlled direction and speed.

        As @Muze points out using a matched pair of counter-propagating spinning wheels would be important in spaceflight as well.



        Step 1: requires a large amount of work and there's no reason to do that in space. You can produce the particle on the ground, so your propellant "tank" would be a feed system dispensing pellets or powder. They could be suspended in a fluid for easier feed and to avoid electrostatic clumping.



        If you have to produce it in space, for example if you are reusing your lower stage as a reaction mass Horace style (Monty Python reference), then you can grind or otherwise form at a lower speed first with a separate wheel. Particles could be remelted in order to make them spherical, and then size-sorted for the following step.



        Step 2: would conceptually be accomplished with a mechanism similar to that of a tennis ball launcher. Two counter-propagating wheels with the particle feed introduced in the small gap between the two wheels' surfaces. The particles would have to be monodipserse, meaning all of a fairly uniform size, and slightly smaller than the gap for good friction. Either the particles or the wheels would have to be elastically compressible enough so that there's a good grip for acceleration, and yet the surfaces should not be readily damaged during the process.



        You could also very slightly incline the wheels such that if you had a sorted range of particle sizes they can all be introduced at the appropriate gap width.



        However, as @Greg points out getting your wheels to spin at mach 10 or faster (for a (mass-)specific impulse or Isp of say 300 or so) is a real materials problem.



        One possibility for propellant would be a maximal concentration (essentially HCP) liquid suspension of latex or polymer spheres which can be obtained highly monodisperse with sufficient money. If you don't have a lot of room for propellant, then perhaps metallic or metal oxide or nitride nanospheres can be produced by pyrolysis.



        enter image description here Horiba Scientific



        GIF from Tennis ball machine DIY - part 1 a better view of a similar mechanism can be seen in Tennis Tutor Ball Machine mechanics in operation.



        enter image description here







        share|improve this answer














        share|improve this answer



        share|improve this answer








        edited 53 mins ago

























        answered 1 hour ago









        uhohuhoh

        40k18149502




        40k18149502





















            0












            $begingroup$

            The main engineering challenge in implementing your proposal is that in order to be competitive with a chemical rocket engine, the grinding wheel must rotate at an extremely high velocity. A typical chemical rocket might have a specific impulse between about 250 and 450 seconds; therefore, the exhaust velocity is about 2500-4500 m/s. In a competitive propulsion system, the edge of the wheel must move at least this fast.



            So the real question is: can we build a grinding wheel strong enough to rotate at this velocity without exploding?



            For now, the answer is no. The tensile stress at the edge of the wheel is $rho r^2 omega^2 = rho v^2$, where $rho$ is the density, $r$ is the radius, $omega$ is the angular velocity, and $v$ is the velocity. Thus, the velocity at which the edge rotates is limited to $v < sqrtTS / rho$, where $TS$ is the ultimate tensile strength of the material the grinding wheel is composed of. Of all materials that we currently know how to produce at macroscopic scales, carbon fiber has the highest ultimate tensile strength per unit mass at about 4000 kN-m/kg. This gives a maximum velocity of 2000 m/s. This is less than the exhaust velocity of even a simple, relatively inefficient chemical rocket.



            However, suppose that someone invents a way of mass-producing carbon nanotubes with an ultimate tensile strength of 60 GPa and a density of 1 g/cm$^3$. Then we could theoretically achieve an exhaust velocity of over 7500 m/s, which is excellent. In this scenario, your grinding wheel actually starts to look like a really good idea.






            share|improve this answer










            New contributor




            Thorondor is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
            Check out our Code of Conduct.






            $endgroup$












            • $begingroup$
              None of the other answers are dismissive at all, as far as I can see.
              $endgroup$
              – Everyday Astronaut
              13 mins ago










            • $begingroup$
              @EverydayAstronaut fair enough, I removed that sentence. I only meant that the currently most upvoted answers simply say the grinding wheel is not a useful propulsion system, without actually calculating its performance.
              $endgroup$
              – Thorondor
              3 mins ago















            0












            $begingroup$

            The main engineering challenge in implementing your proposal is that in order to be competitive with a chemical rocket engine, the grinding wheel must rotate at an extremely high velocity. A typical chemical rocket might have a specific impulse between about 250 and 450 seconds; therefore, the exhaust velocity is about 2500-4500 m/s. In a competitive propulsion system, the edge of the wheel must move at least this fast.



            So the real question is: can we build a grinding wheel strong enough to rotate at this velocity without exploding?



            For now, the answer is no. The tensile stress at the edge of the wheel is $rho r^2 omega^2 = rho v^2$, where $rho$ is the density, $r$ is the radius, $omega$ is the angular velocity, and $v$ is the velocity. Thus, the velocity at which the edge rotates is limited to $v < sqrtTS / rho$, where $TS$ is the ultimate tensile strength of the material the grinding wheel is composed of. Of all materials that we currently know how to produce at macroscopic scales, carbon fiber has the highest ultimate tensile strength per unit mass at about 4000 kN-m/kg. This gives a maximum velocity of 2000 m/s. This is less than the exhaust velocity of even a simple, relatively inefficient chemical rocket.



            However, suppose that someone invents a way of mass-producing carbon nanotubes with an ultimate tensile strength of 60 GPa and a density of 1 g/cm$^3$. Then we could theoretically achieve an exhaust velocity of over 7500 m/s, which is excellent. In this scenario, your grinding wheel actually starts to look like a really good idea.






            share|improve this answer










            New contributor




            Thorondor is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
            Check out our Code of Conduct.






            $endgroup$












            • $begingroup$
              None of the other answers are dismissive at all, as far as I can see.
              $endgroup$
              – Everyday Astronaut
              13 mins ago










            • $begingroup$
              @EverydayAstronaut fair enough, I removed that sentence. I only meant that the currently most upvoted answers simply say the grinding wheel is not a useful propulsion system, without actually calculating its performance.
              $endgroup$
              – Thorondor
              3 mins ago













            0












            0








            0





            $begingroup$

            The main engineering challenge in implementing your proposal is that in order to be competitive with a chemical rocket engine, the grinding wheel must rotate at an extremely high velocity. A typical chemical rocket might have a specific impulse between about 250 and 450 seconds; therefore, the exhaust velocity is about 2500-4500 m/s. In a competitive propulsion system, the edge of the wheel must move at least this fast.



            So the real question is: can we build a grinding wheel strong enough to rotate at this velocity without exploding?



            For now, the answer is no. The tensile stress at the edge of the wheel is $rho r^2 omega^2 = rho v^2$, where $rho$ is the density, $r$ is the radius, $omega$ is the angular velocity, and $v$ is the velocity. Thus, the velocity at which the edge rotates is limited to $v < sqrtTS / rho$, where $TS$ is the ultimate tensile strength of the material the grinding wheel is composed of. Of all materials that we currently know how to produce at macroscopic scales, carbon fiber has the highest ultimate tensile strength per unit mass at about 4000 kN-m/kg. This gives a maximum velocity of 2000 m/s. This is less than the exhaust velocity of even a simple, relatively inefficient chemical rocket.



            However, suppose that someone invents a way of mass-producing carbon nanotubes with an ultimate tensile strength of 60 GPa and a density of 1 g/cm$^3$. Then we could theoretically achieve an exhaust velocity of over 7500 m/s, which is excellent. In this scenario, your grinding wheel actually starts to look like a really good idea.






            share|improve this answer










            New contributor




            Thorondor is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
            Check out our Code of Conduct.






            $endgroup$



            The main engineering challenge in implementing your proposal is that in order to be competitive with a chemical rocket engine, the grinding wheel must rotate at an extremely high velocity. A typical chemical rocket might have a specific impulse between about 250 and 450 seconds; therefore, the exhaust velocity is about 2500-4500 m/s. In a competitive propulsion system, the edge of the wheel must move at least this fast.



            So the real question is: can we build a grinding wheel strong enough to rotate at this velocity without exploding?



            For now, the answer is no. The tensile stress at the edge of the wheel is $rho r^2 omega^2 = rho v^2$, where $rho$ is the density, $r$ is the radius, $omega$ is the angular velocity, and $v$ is the velocity. Thus, the velocity at which the edge rotates is limited to $v < sqrtTS / rho$, where $TS$ is the ultimate tensile strength of the material the grinding wheel is composed of. Of all materials that we currently know how to produce at macroscopic scales, carbon fiber has the highest ultimate tensile strength per unit mass at about 4000 kN-m/kg. This gives a maximum velocity of 2000 m/s. This is less than the exhaust velocity of even a simple, relatively inefficient chemical rocket.



            However, suppose that someone invents a way of mass-producing carbon nanotubes with an ultimate tensile strength of 60 GPa and a density of 1 g/cm$^3$. Then we could theoretically achieve an exhaust velocity of over 7500 m/s, which is excellent. In this scenario, your grinding wheel actually starts to look like a really good idea.







            share|improve this answer










            New contributor




            Thorondor is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
            Check out our Code of Conduct.









            share|improve this answer



            share|improve this answer








            edited 6 mins ago





















            New contributor




            Thorondor is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
            Check out our Code of Conduct.









            answered 15 mins ago









            ThorondorThorondor

            1014




            1014




            New contributor




            Thorondor is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
            Check out our Code of Conduct.





            New contributor





            Thorondor is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
            Check out our Code of Conduct.






            Thorondor is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
            Check out our Code of Conduct.











            • $begingroup$
              None of the other answers are dismissive at all, as far as I can see.
              $endgroup$
              – Everyday Astronaut
              13 mins ago










            • $begingroup$
              @EverydayAstronaut fair enough, I removed that sentence. I only meant that the currently most upvoted answers simply say the grinding wheel is not a useful propulsion system, without actually calculating its performance.
              $endgroup$
              – Thorondor
              3 mins ago
















            • $begingroup$
              None of the other answers are dismissive at all, as far as I can see.
              $endgroup$
              – Everyday Astronaut
              13 mins ago










            • $begingroup$
              @EverydayAstronaut fair enough, I removed that sentence. I only meant that the currently most upvoted answers simply say the grinding wheel is not a useful propulsion system, without actually calculating its performance.
              $endgroup$
              – Thorondor
              3 mins ago















            $begingroup$
            None of the other answers are dismissive at all, as far as I can see.
            $endgroup$
            – Everyday Astronaut
            13 mins ago




            $begingroup$
            None of the other answers are dismissive at all, as far as I can see.
            $endgroup$
            – Everyday Astronaut
            13 mins ago












            $begingroup$
            @EverydayAstronaut fair enough, I removed that sentence. I only meant that the currently most upvoted answers simply say the grinding wheel is not a useful propulsion system, without actually calculating its performance.
            $endgroup$
            – Thorondor
            3 mins ago




            $begingroup$
            @EverydayAstronaut fair enough, I removed that sentence. I only meant that the currently most upvoted answers simply say the grinding wheel is not a useful propulsion system, without actually calculating its performance.
            $endgroup$
            – Thorondor
            3 mins ago

















            draft saved

            draft discarded
















































            Thanks for contributing an answer to Space Exploration Stack Exchange!


            • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

            But avoid


            • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

            • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.

            Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.


            To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




            draft saved


            draft discarded














            StackExchange.ready(
            function ()
            StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fspace.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f35177%2fwould-a-grinding-machine-be-a-simple-and-workable-propulsion-system-for-an-inter%23new-answer', 'question_page');

            );

            Post as a guest















            Required, but never shown





















































            Required, but never shown














            Required, but never shown












            Required, but never shown







            Required, but never shown

































            Required, but never shown














            Required, but never shown












            Required, but never shown







            Required, but never shown







            Popular posts from this blog

            Styletc

            Tórshavn Kliima | Partnerstääden | Luke uk diar | Nawigatsjuun62° 1′ N, 6° 46′ W62° 1′ 0″ N, 6° 46′ 0″ WWMOTórshavn