Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Genergo: Propellantless space-propulsion system

satcom.digital

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 75 posts

Re: Genergo: Propellantless space-propulsion system

#51

Post by jiggawatts »

"Scientifically tested!" is the marketing term for "The tests showed it didn't work, but we won't mention that second part!"

E.g.:

"successfully flight-tested" -- didn't break or leak anything when launched into space. A brick also has these properties.

"validated across three space missions" -- a brick could be flown multiple times too, this proves nothing except that this thing is space-rated.

"protected by a portfolio of granted international patents" -- we've got more lawyers than engineers!

"accumulated more than 700 hours of on-orbit operation" -- I could say the same thing about a brick left in orbit for a month.

"multiple on-orbit activation cycles have continued alongside data analysis and characterization activities" -- we kept turning it on and off in a futile attempt to work out why nothing was happening.

"confirmed system functionality in real space conditions" -- It definitely was "on", drawing power and everything!

"several long-duration tests were conducted in which it was observed, objectively and repeatedly, that motor activation produced a measurable acceleration or deceleration of the host spacecraft." -- we got confused by atmospheric drag, IMU drift, vibrations, and other confounding factors and called the experiment a success despite a string of failures for short-duration tests.

Re: Genergo: Propellantless space-propulsion system

#53

Post by tastyfreeze »

IshKebab wrote: post #37
cjameskeller wrote: post #34

Link to relevant patent: https://patents.google.com/patent/US11462985B2/en

Classic perpetual motion using magnets nonsense. Are there really that many gullible people on HN?

It only takes one crackpot being correct to change the world. Chances are low but are you not at least curious what this is about?

Re: Genergo: Propellantless space-propulsion system

#54

Post by discoutdynamite »

Skimmed the patent. Its 99% a pedantic and exhaustive explanation of a linear motor. The only interesting thing they mention, is this:

The inertial mass of an object varies with the variation of its magnetic field and therefore a variation of inertia can be created

But they provide no explanation whatsoever for how a glorified linear motor is relativistically (or otherwise) affecting inertial mass. This could be operating under a novel application of ECE Theory, wherein they are using magnetism to affect gravity, but I doubt it. They would have claimed so.

Re: Genergo: Propellantless space-propulsion system

#55

Post by Sanzig »

anonymousiam wrote: post #52

Torque rods are not a new thing. Lots of LEO spacecraft use them. They don't work for MEO/GEO because Earth's magnetic field decreases 1/R^3. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnetorquer

Torque rods do work in MEO/GEO, but you need significantly more magnetic moment to get the same torque (ie: larger rods and more current).

It's more a question of how much momentum you need to dump that determines if they are practical or not - magnetorquers are rarely used for direct attitude control, since they don't produce much torque. Instead, they are used "dump" excess momentum stored in the spacecraft's reaction wheels. The wheels can generate high torque, but they do so by changing their rotational speed, storing angular momentum. Ultimately, wheels have a finite maximum rotation speed, so they need to be "desaturated" by transferring angular momentum elsewhere. Magnetorquers provide a way to slowly transfer the angular momentum to the earth over time via its magnetic field.

Re: Genergo: Propellantless space-propulsion system

#56

Post by Terr_ »

Terr_ wrote: post #30
a-priori wrote: post #2

They say it works "by directly converting electrical energy into thrust through controlled electromagnetic impulses", so I assume it's reacting against the Earth's magnetic field using the Lorentz force?

Their patents don't say anything about an external magnetic field, so at best they've accidentally rediscovered it through experimental error and don't know it yet. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45931224

Ugh, wrong link https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45932763

Re: Genergo: Propellantless space-propulsion system

#57

Post by Terr_ »

beloch wrote: post #22

Satellites once used propellant for attitude control. When the propellant was used up, the satellite lost the ability to maintain or change orientation. Very much as this article describes, control moment gyroscopes took over because they didn't require propellant. They operate on the same principles that let a cat land on it's feet by twisting about as it falls. However, there's a key difference between attitude con…

Their patents don't mention the Earth's magnetic field or ambient material, so I'd go with "hogwash".

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45932763

Re: Genergo: Propellantless space-propulsion system

#58

Post by BurningFrog »

jfengel wrote: post #31
buildbot wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Generating matter somehow via E/c^2=m? (I don't think you can do this but I'm not a physicist...)

You don't need to go that far. Light has momentum, and you can use that directly. It has the maximum possible specific impulse. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photon_rocket However, it requires a lot of energy and we are nowhere near a practical model. It's also not "propellant-less"; the photons are the propellant.

The practical point of being "propellant-less" is that you don't use up some finite supply of propellant.

If the "propellant" is electricity that our solar panels can generate, that's functionally propellant-less!

Re: Genergo: Propellantless space-propulsion system

#59

Post by ravi-delia »

beloch wrote: post #22

Satellites once used propellant for attitude control. When the propellant was used up, the satellite lost the ability to maintain or change orientation. Very much as this article describes, control moment gyroscopes took over because they didn't require propellant. They operate on the same principles that let a cat land on it's feet by twisting about as it falls. However, there's a key difference between attitude con…

Propellant is still used for rotation control. Reaction wheels can "saturate" if they compensate for rotation more in one direction than the other on net, so propellant is needed to get them back down. Ion engines, generally speaking, do not use background dust. They still carry propellant, they just eject it electromagnetically. An photon engine, basically just a laser pointed backwards, uses pure electricity to produce thrust. But of course the numbers all work out, since photons have momentum. They're extremely weak though, even lasers of staggering power produce very little force. There's no way you could put one on a satellite

Re: Genergo: Propellantless space-propulsion system

#60

Post by moron4hire »

colechristensen wrote: post #28

This is very likely either nonsense or something very mundane explained poorly. Reactionless drives are probably impossible and inventing them would be an earthshattering breakthrough. Drives "powered" by photon reactions are possible but to get a meaningful amount of thrust you have to produce just an absurd amount of light. (using one in orbit would be a weapon of mass destruction, brighter than the sun, etc) Other…

If anything were ever invented that looked like "reactionless drive", I'm betting dollars to donuts the idea it was reactionless would be short-lived and eventually it would lead to updates in our understanding of matter and what reaction means. Like, maybe some day someone discovers a way to emit gravitons. IDK, I'm sure someone thought the idea of emitting photons without the use of a chemical reduction reaction was preposterous at some point in time, too. But then the reaction would be with space itself. By the end of it, it still wouldn't be "reactionless".
Post reply on HN