Rocket flywheel instead of battery/generator (crazy idea)?












11












$begingroup$


The Electron rocket is launched using a battery instead of generator...



I saw some video about research into using flywheels for energy grid buffer storage, I think that they could reach higher efficiencies and energy density than batteries, so.. essentially any mass could be turned into a flywheel, what about some component of the rocket? Or even the battery itself, doubling as a flywheel until the momentum is drained and then being used as the battery it is?



Would the gyroscopic effect mess things up?










share|improve this question











$endgroup$








  • 3




    $begingroup$
    Storage duration is the key here. Capacitors works well between nano seconds to a few seconds, with the lowest energy density. Battery works well on the order of hours, with very high energy density. Fuel cell works well on the order of hours and days, with even higher energy density. Fly wheel works fine around a few minutes, hence all it's current applications. Unless your satellite carries an electric laser gun, currently none of the space application requires a minute-long high power burst.
    $endgroup$
    – user3528438
    Jan 9 at 18:24








  • 1




    $begingroup$
    @user3528438 if you do your research, you'll find that flywheels have very long storage time, with some calculated to hold energy for decades.
    $endgroup$
    – UKMonkey
    Jan 9 at 19:03










  • $begingroup$
    it is not just a research project, companies have been selling flywheel energy units for years, but as user3528438 alluded to their typical application in the current marketplace is for handling extremely high energy bursts in a very short time. their main problems are levitation and friction, which arent as big problems in space. it makes me wonder......
    $endgroup$
    – don bright
    Jan 10 at 4:23










  • $begingroup$
    Added a new tag per meta discussion.
    $endgroup$
    – called2voyage
    Jan 12 at 17:37
















11












$begingroup$


The Electron rocket is launched using a battery instead of generator...



I saw some video about research into using flywheels for energy grid buffer storage, I think that they could reach higher efficiencies and energy density than batteries, so.. essentially any mass could be turned into a flywheel, what about some component of the rocket? Or even the battery itself, doubling as a flywheel until the momentum is drained and then being used as the battery it is?



Would the gyroscopic effect mess things up?










share|improve this question











$endgroup$








  • 3




    $begingroup$
    Storage duration is the key here. Capacitors works well between nano seconds to a few seconds, with the lowest energy density. Battery works well on the order of hours, with very high energy density. Fuel cell works well on the order of hours and days, with even higher energy density. Fly wheel works fine around a few minutes, hence all it's current applications. Unless your satellite carries an electric laser gun, currently none of the space application requires a minute-long high power burst.
    $endgroup$
    – user3528438
    Jan 9 at 18:24








  • 1




    $begingroup$
    @user3528438 if you do your research, you'll find that flywheels have very long storage time, with some calculated to hold energy for decades.
    $endgroup$
    – UKMonkey
    Jan 9 at 19:03










  • $begingroup$
    it is not just a research project, companies have been selling flywheel energy units for years, but as user3528438 alluded to their typical application in the current marketplace is for handling extremely high energy bursts in a very short time. their main problems are levitation and friction, which arent as big problems in space. it makes me wonder......
    $endgroup$
    – don bright
    Jan 10 at 4:23










  • $begingroup$
    Added a new tag per meta discussion.
    $endgroup$
    – called2voyage
    Jan 12 at 17:37














11












11








11





$begingroup$


The Electron rocket is launched using a battery instead of generator...



I saw some video about research into using flywheels for energy grid buffer storage, I think that they could reach higher efficiencies and energy density than batteries, so.. essentially any mass could be turned into a flywheel, what about some component of the rocket? Or even the battery itself, doubling as a flywheel until the momentum is drained and then being used as the battery it is?



Would the gyroscopic effect mess things up?










share|improve this question











$endgroup$




The Electron rocket is launched using a battery instead of generator...



I saw some video about research into using flywheels for energy grid buffer storage, I think that they could reach higher efficiencies and energy density than batteries, so.. essentially any mass could be turned into a flywheel, what about some component of the rocket? Or even the battery itself, doubling as a flywheel until the momentum is drained and then being used as the battery it is?



Would the gyroscopic effect mess things up?







electron battery design-alternative






share|improve this question















share|improve this question













share|improve this question




share|improve this question








edited Jan 12 at 17:36









called2voyage

16.7k767126




16.7k767126










asked Jan 9 at 13:00









AlondaAlonda

6315




6315








  • 3




    $begingroup$
    Storage duration is the key here. Capacitors works well between nano seconds to a few seconds, with the lowest energy density. Battery works well on the order of hours, with very high energy density. Fuel cell works well on the order of hours and days, with even higher energy density. Fly wheel works fine around a few minutes, hence all it's current applications. Unless your satellite carries an electric laser gun, currently none of the space application requires a minute-long high power burst.
    $endgroup$
    – user3528438
    Jan 9 at 18:24








  • 1




    $begingroup$
    @user3528438 if you do your research, you'll find that flywheels have very long storage time, with some calculated to hold energy for decades.
    $endgroup$
    – UKMonkey
    Jan 9 at 19:03










  • $begingroup$
    it is not just a research project, companies have been selling flywheel energy units for years, but as user3528438 alluded to their typical application in the current marketplace is for handling extremely high energy bursts in a very short time. their main problems are levitation and friction, which arent as big problems in space. it makes me wonder......
    $endgroup$
    – don bright
    Jan 10 at 4:23










  • $begingroup$
    Added a new tag per meta discussion.
    $endgroup$
    – called2voyage
    Jan 12 at 17:37














  • 3




    $begingroup$
    Storage duration is the key here. Capacitors works well between nano seconds to a few seconds, with the lowest energy density. Battery works well on the order of hours, with very high energy density. Fuel cell works well on the order of hours and days, with even higher energy density. Fly wheel works fine around a few minutes, hence all it's current applications. Unless your satellite carries an electric laser gun, currently none of the space application requires a minute-long high power burst.
    $endgroup$
    – user3528438
    Jan 9 at 18:24








  • 1




    $begingroup$
    @user3528438 if you do your research, you'll find that flywheels have very long storage time, with some calculated to hold energy for decades.
    $endgroup$
    – UKMonkey
    Jan 9 at 19:03










  • $begingroup$
    it is not just a research project, companies have been selling flywheel energy units for years, but as user3528438 alluded to their typical application in the current marketplace is for handling extremely high energy bursts in a very short time. their main problems are levitation and friction, which arent as big problems in space. it makes me wonder......
    $endgroup$
    – don bright
    Jan 10 at 4:23










  • $begingroup$
    Added a new tag per meta discussion.
    $endgroup$
    – called2voyage
    Jan 12 at 17:37








3




3




$begingroup$
Storage duration is the key here. Capacitors works well between nano seconds to a few seconds, with the lowest energy density. Battery works well on the order of hours, with very high energy density. Fuel cell works well on the order of hours and days, with even higher energy density. Fly wheel works fine around a few minutes, hence all it's current applications. Unless your satellite carries an electric laser gun, currently none of the space application requires a minute-long high power burst.
$endgroup$
– user3528438
Jan 9 at 18:24






$begingroup$
Storage duration is the key here. Capacitors works well between nano seconds to a few seconds, with the lowest energy density. Battery works well on the order of hours, with very high energy density. Fuel cell works well on the order of hours and days, with even higher energy density. Fly wheel works fine around a few minutes, hence all it's current applications. Unless your satellite carries an electric laser gun, currently none of the space application requires a minute-long high power burst.
$endgroup$
– user3528438
Jan 9 at 18:24






1




1




$begingroup$
@user3528438 if you do your research, you'll find that flywheels have very long storage time, with some calculated to hold energy for decades.
$endgroup$
– UKMonkey
Jan 9 at 19:03




$begingroup$
@user3528438 if you do your research, you'll find that flywheels have very long storage time, with some calculated to hold energy for decades.
$endgroup$
– UKMonkey
Jan 9 at 19:03












$begingroup$
it is not just a research project, companies have been selling flywheel energy units for years, but as user3528438 alluded to their typical application in the current marketplace is for handling extremely high energy bursts in a very short time. their main problems are levitation and friction, which arent as big problems in space. it makes me wonder......
$endgroup$
– don bright
Jan 10 at 4:23




$begingroup$
it is not just a research project, companies have been selling flywheel energy units for years, but as user3528438 alluded to their typical application in the current marketplace is for handling extremely high energy bursts in a very short time. their main problems are levitation and friction, which arent as big problems in space. it makes me wonder......
$endgroup$
– don bright
Jan 10 at 4:23












$begingroup$
Added a new tag per meta discussion.
$endgroup$
– called2voyage
Jan 12 at 17:37




$begingroup$
Added a new tag per meta discussion.
$endgroup$
– called2voyage
Jan 12 at 17:37










3 Answers
3






active

oldest

votes


















25












$begingroup$

A flywheel is so efficient because it is big and heavy, both of which you don't want to add to a spacecraft. As for spinning an existing component, the only parts of a rocket that really have any significant mass (would justify the additional bearings and generator) would be fuel tanks. Spinning a fuel tank with liquid fuel in it would be tricky though, especially adapting the piping and fuel lines to work while spun at thousands of RPMs is a significant engineering challenge.



Also, most rockets don't really suffer from a lack of electrical power. Of all modern rockets, the Electron is basically the only one which uses batteries as "fuel" and discards them as the rocket gains altitude. Additionally, while flywheels may reach high densities, they are still nowhere near the immense energy density of liquid rocket propellants. Syphoning off a tiny portion of the fuel is often done with a small turbine which then powers the pumps. In the Electron, this turbine is replaced by batteries for mechanical simplicity.



Once at higher altitudes or in space, electricity can also be generated with reliable solar power which precludes the need for large stores of electrical power.



As for your second question, a large spinning part of a rocket could actually be beneficial as it provides spin-stabilization. Early rockets and long range missiles actually spun the entire rocket to make control easier and the rocket fly straighter without the need for complex control loops.






share|improve this answer











$endgroup$













  • $begingroup$
    "flywheels may reach higher densities than conventional batteries" -erm , no.
    $endgroup$
    – Hobbes
    Jan 9 at 18:10










  • $begingroup$
    @Hobbes whoops, fixed
    $endgroup$
    – Dragongeek
    Jan 9 at 19:07










  • $begingroup$
    Many suborbital (sounding) rockets still use spin stabilization as a means to reduce dispersion without adding the complexity of guidance.
    $endgroup$
    – Adrien
    Jan 9 at 20:46










  • $begingroup$
    Spin stabilization is still used, for example on the Minotaur V. Its not a thing of the past. DAWN even used Yo-yo despin as late as 2007.
    $endgroup$
    – Polygnome
    Jan 10 at 17:57



















12












$begingroup$

In principle, this should be possible. The question is, is it practical?




  • An example flywheel used in car racing (i.e. a high-performance, cost-no-object application) weighs 18 kg and stores 400 kJ = 400 kWs, is 111 Wh, or 6.1 Wh/kg.


  • A Li-ion battery has a specific energy of 100–265 Wh/kg, 16-44 times higher.



So the flywheel solution needs far more weight to store the same energy. And this is all dead weight: it has to be carried to orbit, and can't be jettisoned on the way up.



I also can't see a way to use part of the rocket as flywheel mass without causing complications. A rocket is mostly empty space (the fuel tanks), with some engines at the bottom. You'd have to spin the entire tank section relative to the engines, but you can't do that because there are multiple propellant lines between these sections. Plus the structural strength requirements on such a construction.



To convert between J and Wh:



1 J = 1W.s

A 1.9 MJ flywheel stores 1.9E6/3600 = 527 Wh, 527/500 = 1.05 Wh/kg






share|improve this answer











$endgroup$









  • 1




    $begingroup$
    That's still only 10 Wh/kg.
    $endgroup$
    – Hobbes
    Jan 9 at 18:57






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    Additionally, the racecar flywheel is connected with a what is essentially mechanical clutch, on a rocket you'd need to include the mass of a generator to convert the spin to electrical power.
    $endgroup$
    – Dragongeek
    Jan 9 at 19:10






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    Another negative is that the flywheel could add gyroscopic effects to attitude changes, both resisting attitude changes, and causing torque induced precession. Also, attitude changes would cause a the gyroscope to lose angular momentum. But I don't know how significant these effects would be, given how heavy fueled boosters are.
    $endgroup$
    – Wayne Conrad
    Jan 9 at 20:04






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    No. That 1.9 MJ requires 500 kg of flywheel, so that's 3.8 J/kg. My calculation was off, 10 Wh/kg is a factor 10 too high. Flywheels are severely limited by material strength; at high speeds you need very strong materials to keep the flywheel from disintegrating.
    $endgroup$
    – Hobbes
    Jan 10 at 9:29






  • 4




    $begingroup$
    No. As quoted, a battery contains 100-250 Wh/kg. I've got a 500 Wh battery sitting on my desk, it weighs less than 3 kg.
    $endgroup$
    – Hobbes
    Jan 10 at 9:45





















4












$begingroup$

The other answerers have failed to do their research correctly. NASA and China are both researching this. The idea is it helps increase the life of the battery on board since there are less charge cycles - but a battery is still used because by just using the flywheels for energy storage, the life of the flywheel bearings is reduced. Using both provides the longest lifetime for an unmanned satellite.



Well, the fly wheel to be used for power grid storage is efficient because it's lightweight; not heavy that the other answerers believe. To be fair to them, JET uses 2 775 ton fly wheels, which spin up to 225 rpm, but they were built 30 years ago, and getting slow heavy wheels is significantly easier than fast light ones.



Energy stored is linear with mass, but squared with velocity - so by having a lighter wheel of half the mass that can spin double the speed without tearing itself apart, double the energy is stored.



These fly wheels are suspended by magnets in a vacuum; and allowed to spin to huge velocities.



So in principle - putting them in space would actually make life much much easier for the vacuum side of the problem. The magnets to stop it hitting the ship aren't particularly light, but can clearly be scaled down for a ship rather than a city; And you could counter any imbalance of rotation forces by having 2 spin in opposite directions.



The problem is the amount of damage that can be done if things go wrong on a manned ship. If a battery goes wrong on a manned ship and you have a fire, you can implement emergency measures, seal the area with the batteries, and eject them. Granted not ideal, but it solves the problem. If something goes wrong with a flywheel spinning at 10k rpm, you won't have a space station to try and save; nor the time to try and save it.



The other issue is that (from the nasa interview) flywheels are good to store large amounts of energy, but not small amounts... Making them impractical for small craft.






share|improve this answer











$endgroup$









  • 3




    $begingroup$
    Name one current satellite that uses flywheels to store energy.
    $endgroup$
    – Hobbes
    Jan 9 at 18:08






  • 4




    $begingroup$
    And flywheels are anything but lightweight. I've provided numbers, if you know better provide a reference.
    $endgroup$
    – Hobbes
    Jan 9 at 18:09






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    No current satellite uses magnetic bearings, as far as I know, and while the paper linked describes a theoretical way to integrate energy storage and attitude control, few or no satellites have yet implemented this. (And, of course, if you have a functional set of flywheels, using them also for energy storage costs no extra mass. This doesn't mean it would be worthwhile to scale them up to use nothing else, or worthwhile to use them on a launch vehicle.)
    $endgroup$
    – Nathan Tuggy
    Jan 9 at 18:11








  • 2




    $begingroup$
    @Hobbes You're right, they're not currently in use, theyre in current research. The point is, they're not a crazy idea... And I've updated the answer to reflect
    $endgroup$
    – UKMonkey
    Jan 9 at 18:47






  • 3




    $begingroup$
    note that the question was about launchers, not satellites, i.e. a lifetime of 10 minutes to 4 hours and no recharging.
    $endgroup$
    – Hobbes
    Jan 9 at 19:02











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%2f33445%2frocket-flywheel-instead-of-battery-generator-crazy-idea%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);

Post as a guest















Required, but never shown

























3 Answers
3






active

oldest

votes








3 Answers
3






active

oldest

votes









active

oldest

votes






active

oldest

votes









25












$begingroup$

A flywheel is so efficient because it is big and heavy, both of which you don't want to add to a spacecraft. As for spinning an existing component, the only parts of a rocket that really have any significant mass (would justify the additional bearings and generator) would be fuel tanks. Spinning a fuel tank with liquid fuel in it would be tricky though, especially adapting the piping and fuel lines to work while spun at thousands of RPMs is a significant engineering challenge.



Also, most rockets don't really suffer from a lack of electrical power. Of all modern rockets, the Electron is basically the only one which uses batteries as "fuel" and discards them as the rocket gains altitude. Additionally, while flywheels may reach high densities, they are still nowhere near the immense energy density of liquid rocket propellants. Syphoning off a tiny portion of the fuel is often done with a small turbine which then powers the pumps. In the Electron, this turbine is replaced by batteries for mechanical simplicity.



Once at higher altitudes or in space, electricity can also be generated with reliable solar power which precludes the need for large stores of electrical power.



As for your second question, a large spinning part of a rocket could actually be beneficial as it provides spin-stabilization. Early rockets and long range missiles actually spun the entire rocket to make control easier and the rocket fly straighter without the need for complex control loops.






share|improve this answer











$endgroup$













  • $begingroup$
    "flywheels may reach higher densities than conventional batteries" -erm , no.
    $endgroup$
    – Hobbes
    Jan 9 at 18:10










  • $begingroup$
    @Hobbes whoops, fixed
    $endgroup$
    – Dragongeek
    Jan 9 at 19:07










  • $begingroup$
    Many suborbital (sounding) rockets still use spin stabilization as a means to reduce dispersion without adding the complexity of guidance.
    $endgroup$
    – Adrien
    Jan 9 at 20:46










  • $begingroup$
    Spin stabilization is still used, for example on the Minotaur V. Its not a thing of the past. DAWN even used Yo-yo despin as late as 2007.
    $endgroup$
    – Polygnome
    Jan 10 at 17:57
















25












$begingroup$

A flywheel is so efficient because it is big and heavy, both of which you don't want to add to a spacecraft. As for spinning an existing component, the only parts of a rocket that really have any significant mass (would justify the additional bearings and generator) would be fuel tanks. Spinning a fuel tank with liquid fuel in it would be tricky though, especially adapting the piping and fuel lines to work while spun at thousands of RPMs is a significant engineering challenge.



Also, most rockets don't really suffer from a lack of electrical power. Of all modern rockets, the Electron is basically the only one which uses batteries as "fuel" and discards them as the rocket gains altitude. Additionally, while flywheels may reach high densities, they are still nowhere near the immense energy density of liquid rocket propellants. Syphoning off a tiny portion of the fuel is often done with a small turbine which then powers the pumps. In the Electron, this turbine is replaced by batteries for mechanical simplicity.



Once at higher altitudes or in space, electricity can also be generated with reliable solar power which precludes the need for large stores of electrical power.



As for your second question, a large spinning part of a rocket could actually be beneficial as it provides spin-stabilization. Early rockets and long range missiles actually spun the entire rocket to make control easier and the rocket fly straighter without the need for complex control loops.






share|improve this answer











$endgroup$













  • $begingroup$
    "flywheels may reach higher densities than conventional batteries" -erm , no.
    $endgroup$
    – Hobbes
    Jan 9 at 18:10










  • $begingroup$
    @Hobbes whoops, fixed
    $endgroup$
    – Dragongeek
    Jan 9 at 19:07










  • $begingroup$
    Many suborbital (sounding) rockets still use spin stabilization as a means to reduce dispersion without adding the complexity of guidance.
    $endgroup$
    – Adrien
    Jan 9 at 20:46










  • $begingroup$
    Spin stabilization is still used, for example on the Minotaur V. Its not a thing of the past. DAWN even used Yo-yo despin as late as 2007.
    $endgroup$
    – Polygnome
    Jan 10 at 17:57














25












25








25





$begingroup$

A flywheel is so efficient because it is big and heavy, both of which you don't want to add to a spacecraft. As for spinning an existing component, the only parts of a rocket that really have any significant mass (would justify the additional bearings and generator) would be fuel tanks. Spinning a fuel tank with liquid fuel in it would be tricky though, especially adapting the piping and fuel lines to work while spun at thousands of RPMs is a significant engineering challenge.



Also, most rockets don't really suffer from a lack of electrical power. Of all modern rockets, the Electron is basically the only one which uses batteries as "fuel" and discards them as the rocket gains altitude. Additionally, while flywheels may reach high densities, they are still nowhere near the immense energy density of liquid rocket propellants. Syphoning off a tiny portion of the fuel is often done with a small turbine which then powers the pumps. In the Electron, this turbine is replaced by batteries for mechanical simplicity.



Once at higher altitudes or in space, electricity can also be generated with reliable solar power which precludes the need for large stores of electrical power.



As for your second question, a large spinning part of a rocket could actually be beneficial as it provides spin-stabilization. Early rockets and long range missiles actually spun the entire rocket to make control easier and the rocket fly straighter without the need for complex control loops.






share|improve this answer











$endgroup$



A flywheel is so efficient because it is big and heavy, both of which you don't want to add to a spacecraft. As for spinning an existing component, the only parts of a rocket that really have any significant mass (would justify the additional bearings and generator) would be fuel tanks. Spinning a fuel tank with liquid fuel in it would be tricky though, especially adapting the piping and fuel lines to work while spun at thousands of RPMs is a significant engineering challenge.



Also, most rockets don't really suffer from a lack of electrical power. Of all modern rockets, the Electron is basically the only one which uses batteries as "fuel" and discards them as the rocket gains altitude. Additionally, while flywheels may reach high densities, they are still nowhere near the immense energy density of liquid rocket propellants. Syphoning off a tiny portion of the fuel is often done with a small turbine which then powers the pumps. In the Electron, this turbine is replaced by batteries for mechanical simplicity.



Once at higher altitudes or in space, electricity can also be generated with reliable solar power which precludes the need for large stores of electrical power.



As for your second question, a large spinning part of a rocket could actually be beneficial as it provides spin-stabilization. Early rockets and long range missiles actually spun the entire rocket to make control easier and the rocket fly straighter without the need for complex control loops.







share|improve this answer














share|improve this answer



share|improve this answer








edited Jan 9 at 19:07

























answered Jan 9 at 13:37









DragongeekDragongeek

4,4521633




4,4521633












  • $begingroup$
    "flywheels may reach higher densities than conventional batteries" -erm , no.
    $endgroup$
    – Hobbes
    Jan 9 at 18:10










  • $begingroup$
    @Hobbes whoops, fixed
    $endgroup$
    – Dragongeek
    Jan 9 at 19:07










  • $begingroup$
    Many suborbital (sounding) rockets still use spin stabilization as a means to reduce dispersion without adding the complexity of guidance.
    $endgroup$
    – Adrien
    Jan 9 at 20:46










  • $begingroup$
    Spin stabilization is still used, for example on the Minotaur V. Its not a thing of the past. DAWN even used Yo-yo despin as late as 2007.
    $endgroup$
    – Polygnome
    Jan 10 at 17:57


















  • $begingroup$
    "flywheels may reach higher densities than conventional batteries" -erm , no.
    $endgroup$
    – Hobbes
    Jan 9 at 18:10










  • $begingroup$
    @Hobbes whoops, fixed
    $endgroup$
    – Dragongeek
    Jan 9 at 19:07










  • $begingroup$
    Many suborbital (sounding) rockets still use spin stabilization as a means to reduce dispersion without adding the complexity of guidance.
    $endgroup$
    – Adrien
    Jan 9 at 20:46










  • $begingroup$
    Spin stabilization is still used, for example on the Minotaur V. Its not a thing of the past. DAWN even used Yo-yo despin as late as 2007.
    $endgroup$
    – Polygnome
    Jan 10 at 17:57
















$begingroup$
"flywheels may reach higher densities than conventional batteries" -erm , no.
$endgroup$
– Hobbes
Jan 9 at 18:10




$begingroup$
"flywheels may reach higher densities than conventional batteries" -erm , no.
$endgroup$
– Hobbes
Jan 9 at 18:10












$begingroup$
@Hobbes whoops, fixed
$endgroup$
– Dragongeek
Jan 9 at 19:07




$begingroup$
@Hobbes whoops, fixed
$endgroup$
– Dragongeek
Jan 9 at 19:07












$begingroup$
Many suborbital (sounding) rockets still use spin stabilization as a means to reduce dispersion without adding the complexity of guidance.
$endgroup$
– Adrien
Jan 9 at 20:46




$begingroup$
Many suborbital (sounding) rockets still use spin stabilization as a means to reduce dispersion without adding the complexity of guidance.
$endgroup$
– Adrien
Jan 9 at 20:46












$begingroup$
Spin stabilization is still used, for example on the Minotaur V. Its not a thing of the past. DAWN even used Yo-yo despin as late as 2007.
$endgroup$
– Polygnome
Jan 10 at 17:57




$begingroup$
Spin stabilization is still used, for example on the Minotaur V. Its not a thing of the past. DAWN even used Yo-yo despin as late as 2007.
$endgroup$
– Polygnome
Jan 10 at 17:57











12












$begingroup$

In principle, this should be possible. The question is, is it practical?




  • An example flywheel used in car racing (i.e. a high-performance, cost-no-object application) weighs 18 kg and stores 400 kJ = 400 kWs, is 111 Wh, or 6.1 Wh/kg.


  • A Li-ion battery has a specific energy of 100–265 Wh/kg, 16-44 times higher.



So the flywheel solution needs far more weight to store the same energy. And this is all dead weight: it has to be carried to orbit, and can't be jettisoned on the way up.



I also can't see a way to use part of the rocket as flywheel mass without causing complications. A rocket is mostly empty space (the fuel tanks), with some engines at the bottom. You'd have to spin the entire tank section relative to the engines, but you can't do that because there are multiple propellant lines between these sections. Plus the structural strength requirements on such a construction.



To convert between J and Wh:



1 J = 1W.s

A 1.9 MJ flywheel stores 1.9E6/3600 = 527 Wh, 527/500 = 1.05 Wh/kg






share|improve this answer











$endgroup$









  • 1




    $begingroup$
    That's still only 10 Wh/kg.
    $endgroup$
    – Hobbes
    Jan 9 at 18:57






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    Additionally, the racecar flywheel is connected with a what is essentially mechanical clutch, on a rocket you'd need to include the mass of a generator to convert the spin to electrical power.
    $endgroup$
    – Dragongeek
    Jan 9 at 19:10






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    Another negative is that the flywheel could add gyroscopic effects to attitude changes, both resisting attitude changes, and causing torque induced precession. Also, attitude changes would cause a the gyroscope to lose angular momentum. But I don't know how significant these effects would be, given how heavy fueled boosters are.
    $endgroup$
    – Wayne Conrad
    Jan 9 at 20:04






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    No. That 1.9 MJ requires 500 kg of flywheel, so that's 3.8 J/kg. My calculation was off, 10 Wh/kg is a factor 10 too high. Flywheels are severely limited by material strength; at high speeds you need very strong materials to keep the flywheel from disintegrating.
    $endgroup$
    – Hobbes
    Jan 10 at 9:29






  • 4




    $begingroup$
    No. As quoted, a battery contains 100-250 Wh/kg. I've got a 500 Wh battery sitting on my desk, it weighs less than 3 kg.
    $endgroup$
    – Hobbes
    Jan 10 at 9:45


















12












$begingroup$

In principle, this should be possible. The question is, is it practical?




  • An example flywheel used in car racing (i.e. a high-performance, cost-no-object application) weighs 18 kg and stores 400 kJ = 400 kWs, is 111 Wh, or 6.1 Wh/kg.


  • A Li-ion battery has a specific energy of 100–265 Wh/kg, 16-44 times higher.



So the flywheel solution needs far more weight to store the same energy. And this is all dead weight: it has to be carried to orbit, and can't be jettisoned on the way up.



I also can't see a way to use part of the rocket as flywheel mass without causing complications. A rocket is mostly empty space (the fuel tanks), with some engines at the bottom. You'd have to spin the entire tank section relative to the engines, but you can't do that because there are multiple propellant lines between these sections. Plus the structural strength requirements on such a construction.



To convert between J and Wh:



1 J = 1W.s

A 1.9 MJ flywheel stores 1.9E6/3600 = 527 Wh, 527/500 = 1.05 Wh/kg






share|improve this answer











$endgroup$









  • 1




    $begingroup$
    That's still only 10 Wh/kg.
    $endgroup$
    – Hobbes
    Jan 9 at 18:57






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    Additionally, the racecar flywheel is connected with a what is essentially mechanical clutch, on a rocket you'd need to include the mass of a generator to convert the spin to electrical power.
    $endgroup$
    – Dragongeek
    Jan 9 at 19:10






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    Another negative is that the flywheel could add gyroscopic effects to attitude changes, both resisting attitude changes, and causing torque induced precession. Also, attitude changes would cause a the gyroscope to lose angular momentum. But I don't know how significant these effects would be, given how heavy fueled boosters are.
    $endgroup$
    – Wayne Conrad
    Jan 9 at 20:04






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    No. That 1.9 MJ requires 500 kg of flywheel, so that's 3.8 J/kg. My calculation was off, 10 Wh/kg is a factor 10 too high. Flywheels are severely limited by material strength; at high speeds you need very strong materials to keep the flywheel from disintegrating.
    $endgroup$
    – Hobbes
    Jan 10 at 9:29






  • 4




    $begingroup$
    No. As quoted, a battery contains 100-250 Wh/kg. I've got a 500 Wh battery sitting on my desk, it weighs less than 3 kg.
    $endgroup$
    – Hobbes
    Jan 10 at 9:45
















12












12








12





$begingroup$

In principle, this should be possible. The question is, is it practical?




  • An example flywheel used in car racing (i.e. a high-performance, cost-no-object application) weighs 18 kg and stores 400 kJ = 400 kWs, is 111 Wh, or 6.1 Wh/kg.


  • A Li-ion battery has a specific energy of 100–265 Wh/kg, 16-44 times higher.



So the flywheel solution needs far more weight to store the same energy. And this is all dead weight: it has to be carried to orbit, and can't be jettisoned on the way up.



I also can't see a way to use part of the rocket as flywheel mass without causing complications. A rocket is mostly empty space (the fuel tanks), with some engines at the bottom. You'd have to spin the entire tank section relative to the engines, but you can't do that because there are multiple propellant lines between these sections. Plus the structural strength requirements on such a construction.



To convert between J and Wh:



1 J = 1W.s

A 1.9 MJ flywheel stores 1.9E6/3600 = 527 Wh, 527/500 = 1.05 Wh/kg






share|improve this answer











$endgroup$



In principle, this should be possible. The question is, is it practical?




  • An example flywheel used in car racing (i.e. a high-performance, cost-no-object application) weighs 18 kg and stores 400 kJ = 400 kWs, is 111 Wh, or 6.1 Wh/kg.


  • A Li-ion battery has a specific energy of 100–265 Wh/kg, 16-44 times higher.



So the flywheel solution needs far more weight to store the same energy. And this is all dead weight: it has to be carried to orbit, and can't be jettisoned on the way up.



I also can't see a way to use part of the rocket as flywheel mass without causing complications. A rocket is mostly empty space (the fuel tanks), with some engines at the bottom. You'd have to spin the entire tank section relative to the engines, but you can't do that because there are multiple propellant lines between these sections. Plus the structural strength requirements on such a construction.



To convert between J and Wh:



1 J = 1W.s

A 1.9 MJ flywheel stores 1.9E6/3600 = 527 Wh, 527/500 = 1.05 Wh/kg







share|improve this answer














share|improve this answer



share|improve this answer








edited Jan 10 at 20:45

























answered Jan 9 at 13:41









HobbesHobbes

88.9k2253402




88.9k2253402








  • 1




    $begingroup$
    That's still only 10 Wh/kg.
    $endgroup$
    – Hobbes
    Jan 9 at 18:57






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    Additionally, the racecar flywheel is connected with a what is essentially mechanical clutch, on a rocket you'd need to include the mass of a generator to convert the spin to electrical power.
    $endgroup$
    – Dragongeek
    Jan 9 at 19:10






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    Another negative is that the flywheel could add gyroscopic effects to attitude changes, both resisting attitude changes, and causing torque induced precession. Also, attitude changes would cause a the gyroscope to lose angular momentum. But I don't know how significant these effects would be, given how heavy fueled boosters are.
    $endgroup$
    – Wayne Conrad
    Jan 9 at 20:04






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    No. That 1.9 MJ requires 500 kg of flywheel, so that's 3.8 J/kg. My calculation was off, 10 Wh/kg is a factor 10 too high. Flywheels are severely limited by material strength; at high speeds you need very strong materials to keep the flywheel from disintegrating.
    $endgroup$
    – Hobbes
    Jan 10 at 9:29






  • 4




    $begingroup$
    No. As quoted, a battery contains 100-250 Wh/kg. I've got a 500 Wh battery sitting on my desk, it weighs less than 3 kg.
    $endgroup$
    – Hobbes
    Jan 10 at 9:45
















  • 1




    $begingroup$
    That's still only 10 Wh/kg.
    $endgroup$
    – Hobbes
    Jan 9 at 18:57






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    Additionally, the racecar flywheel is connected with a what is essentially mechanical clutch, on a rocket you'd need to include the mass of a generator to convert the spin to electrical power.
    $endgroup$
    – Dragongeek
    Jan 9 at 19:10






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    Another negative is that the flywheel could add gyroscopic effects to attitude changes, both resisting attitude changes, and causing torque induced precession. Also, attitude changes would cause a the gyroscope to lose angular momentum. But I don't know how significant these effects would be, given how heavy fueled boosters are.
    $endgroup$
    – Wayne Conrad
    Jan 9 at 20:04






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    No. That 1.9 MJ requires 500 kg of flywheel, so that's 3.8 J/kg. My calculation was off, 10 Wh/kg is a factor 10 too high. Flywheels are severely limited by material strength; at high speeds you need very strong materials to keep the flywheel from disintegrating.
    $endgroup$
    – Hobbes
    Jan 10 at 9:29






  • 4




    $begingroup$
    No. As quoted, a battery contains 100-250 Wh/kg. I've got a 500 Wh battery sitting on my desk, it weighs less than 3 kg.
    $endgroup$
    – Hobbes
    Jan 10 at 9:45










1




1




$begingroup$
That's still only 10 Wh/kg.
$endgroup$
– Hobbes
Jan 9 at 18:57




$begingroup$
That's still only 10 Wh/kg.
$endgroup$
– Hobbes
Jan 9 at 18:57




1




1




$begingroup$
Additionally, the racecar flywheel is connected with a what is essentially mechanical clutch, on a rocket you'd need to include the mass of a generator to convert the spin to electrical power.
$endgroup$
– Dragongeek
Jan 9 at 19:10




$begingroup$
Additionally, the racecar flywheel is connected with a what is essentially mechanical clutch, on a rocket you'd need to include the mass of a generator to convert the spin to electrical power.
$endgroup$
– Dragongeek
Jan 9 at 19:10




1




1




$begingroup$
Another negative is that the flywheel could add gyroscopic effects to attitude changes, both resisting attitude changes, and causing torque induced precession. Also, attitude changes would cause a the gyroscope to lose angular momentum. But I don't know how significant these effects would be, given how heavy fueled boosters are.
$endgroup$
– Wayne Conrad
Jan 9 at 20:04




$begingroup$
Another negative is that the flywheel could add gyroscopic effects to attitude changes, both resisting attitude changes, and causing torque induced precession. Also, attitude changes would cause a the gyroscope to lose angular momentum. But I don't know how significant these effects would be, given how heavy fueled boosters are.
$endgroup$
– Wayne Conrad
Jan 9 at 20:04




1




1




$begingroup$
No. That 1.9 MJ requires 500 kg of flywheel, so that's 3.8 J/kg. My calculation was off, 10 Wh/kg is a factor 10 too high. Flywheels are severely limited by material strength; at high speeds you need very strong materials to keep the flywheel from disintegrating.
$endgroup$
– Hobbes
Jan 10 at 9:29




$begingroup$
No. That 1.9 MJ requires 500 kg of flywheel, so that's 3.8 J/kg. My calculation was off, 10 Wh/kg is a factor 10 too high. Flywheels are severely limited by material strength; at high speeds you need very strong materials to keep the flywheel from disintegrating.
$endgroup$
– Hobbes
Jan 10 at 9:29




4




4




$begingroup$
No. As quoted, a battery contains 100-250 Wh/kg. I've got a 500 Wh battery sitting on my desk, it weighs less than 3 kg.
$endgroup$
– Hobbes
Jan 10 at 9:45






$begingroup$
No. As quoted, a battery contains 100-250 Wh/kg. I've got a 500 Wh battery sitting on my desk, it weighs less than 3 kg.
$endgroup$
– Hobbes
Jan 10 at 9:45













4












$begingroup$

The other answerers have failed to do their research correctly. NASA and China are both researching this. The idea is it helps increase the life of the battery on board since there are less charge cycles - but a battery is still used because by just using the flywheels for energy storage, the life of the flywheel bearings is reduced. Using both provides the longest lifetime for an unmanned satellite.



Well, the fly wheel to be used for power grid storage is efficient because it's lightweight; not heavy that the other answerers believe. To be fair to them, JET uses 2 775 ton fly wheels, which spin up to 225 rpm, but they were built 30 years ago, and getting slow heavy wheels is significantly easier than fast light ones.



Energy stored is linear with mass, but squared with velocity - so by having a lighter wheel of half the mass that can spin double the speed without tearing itself apart, double the energy is stored.



These fly wheels are suspended by magnets in a vacuum; and allowed to spin to huge velocities.



So in principle - putting them in space would actually make life much much easier for the vacuum side of the problem. The magnets to stop it hitting the ship aren't particularly light, but can clearly be scaled down for a ship rather than a city; And you could counter any imbalance of rotation forces by having 2 spin in opposite directions.



The problem is the amount of damage that can be done if things go wrong on a manned ship. If a battery goes wrong on a manned ship and you have a fire, you can implement emergency measures, seal the area with the batteries, and eject them. Granted not ideal, but it solves the problem. If something goes wrong with a flywheel spinning at 10k rpm, you won't have a space station to try and save; nor the time to try and save it.



The other issue is that (from the nasa interview) flywheels are good to store large amounts of energy, but not small amounts... Making them impractical for small craft.






share|improve this answer











$endgroup$









  • 3




    $begingroup$
    Name one current satellite that uses flywheels to store energy.
    $endgroup$
    – Hobbes
    Jan 9 at 18:08






  • 4




    $begingroup$
    And flywheels are anything but lightweight. I've provided numbers, if you know better provide a reference.
    $endgroup$
    – Hobbes
    Jan 9 at 18:09






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    No current satellite uses magnetic bearings, as far as I know, and while the paper linked describes a theoretical way to integrate energy storage and attitude control, few or no satellites have yet implemented this. (And, of course, if you have a functional set of flywheels, using them also for energy storage costs no extra mass. This doesn't mean it would be worthwhile to scale them up to use nothing else, or worthwhile to use them on a launch vehicle.)
    $endgroup$
    – Nathan Tuggy
    Jan 9 at 18:11








  • 2




    $begingroup$
    @Hobbes You're right, they're not currently in use, theyre in current research. The point is, they're not a crazy idea... And I've updated the answer to reflect
    $endgroup$
    – UKMonkey
    Jan 9 at 18:47






  • 3




    $begingroup$
    note that the question was about launchers, not satellites, i.e. a lifetime of 10 minutes to 4 hours and no recharging.
    $endgroup$
    – Hobbes
    Jan 9 at 19:02
















4












$begingroup$

The other answerers have failed to do their research correctly. NASA and China are both researching this. The idea is it helps increase the life of the battery on board since there are less charge cycles - but a battery is still used because by just using the flywheels for energy storage, the life of the flywheel bearings is reduced. Using both provides the longest lifetime for an unmanned satellite.



Well, the fly wheel to be used for power grid storage is efficient because it's lightweight; not heavy that the other answerers believe. To be fair to them, JET uses 2 775 ton fly wheels, which spin up to 225 rpm, but they were built 30 years ago, and getting slow heavy wheels is significantly easier than fast light ones.



Energy stored is linear with mass, but squared with velocity - so by having a lighter wheel of half the mass that can spin double the speed without tearing itself apart, double the energy is stored.



These fly wheels are suspended by magnets in a vacuum; and allowed to spin to huge velocities.



So in principle - putting them in space would actually make life much much easier for the vacuum side of the problem. The magnets to stop it hitting the ship aren't particularly light, but can clearly be scaled down for a ship rather than a city; And you could counter any imbalance of rotation forces by having 2 spin in opposite directions.



The problem is the amount of damage that can be done if things go wrong on a manned ship. If a battery goes wrong on a manned ship and you have a fire, you can implement emergency measures, seal the area with the batteries, and eject them. Granted not ideal, but it solves the problem. If something goes wrong with a flywheel spinning at 10k rpm, you won't have a space station to try and save; nor the time to try and save it.



The other issue is that (from the nasa interview) flywheels are good to store large amounts of energy, but not small amounts... Making them impractical for small craft.






share|improve this answer











$endgroup$









  • 3




    $begingroup$
    Name one current satellite that uses flywheels to store energy.
    $endgroup$
    – Hobbes
    Jan 9 at 18:08






  • 4




    $begingroup$
    And flywheels are anything but lightweight. I've provided numbers, if you know better provide a reference.
    $endgroup$
    – Hobbes
    Jan 9 at 18:09






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    No current satellite uses magnetic bearings, as far as I know, and while the paper linked describes a theoretical way to integrate energy storage and attitude control, few or no satellites have yet implemented this. (And, of course, if you have a functional set of flywheels, using them also for energy storage costs no extra mass. This doesn't mean it would be worthwhile to scale them up to use nothing else, or worthwhile to use them on a launch vehicle.)
    $endgroup$
    – Nathan Tuggy
    Jan 9 at 18:11








  • 2




    $begingroup$
    @Hobbes You're right, they're not currently in use, theyre in current research. The point is, they're not a crazy idea... And I've updated the answer to reflect
    $endgroup$
    – UKMonkey
    Jan 9 at 18:47






  • 3




    $begingroup$
    note that the question was about launchers, not satellites, i.e. a lifetime of 10 minutes to 4 hours and no recharging.
    $endgroup$
    – Hobbes
    Jan 9 at 19:02














4












4








4





$begingroup$

The other answerers have failed to do their research correctly. NASA and China are both researching this. The idea is it helps increase the life of the battery on board since there are less charge cycles - but a battery is still used because by just using the flywheels for energy storage, the life of the flywheel bearings is reduced. Using both provides the longest lifetime for an unmanned satellite.



Well, the fly wheel to be used for power grid storage is efficient because it's lightweight; not heavy that the other answerers believe. To be fair to them, JET uses 2 775 ton fly wheels, which spin up to 225 rpm, but they were built 30 years ago, and getting slow heavy wheels is significantly easier than fast light ones.



Energy stored is linear with mass, but squared with velocity - so by having a lighter wheel of half the mass that can spin double the speed without tearing itself apart, double the energy is stored.



These fly wheels are suspended by magnets in a vacuum; and allowed to spin to huge velocities.



So in principle - putting them in space would actually make life much much easier for the vacuum side of the problem. The magnets to stop it hitting the ship aren't particularly light, but can clearly be scaled down for a ship rather than a city; And you could counter any imbalance of rotation forces by having 2 spin in opposite directions.



The problem is the amount of damage that can be done if things go wrong on a manned ship. If a battery goes wrong on a manned ship and you have a fire, you can implement emergency measures, seal the area with the batteries, and eject them. Granted not ideal, but it solves the problem. If something goes wrong with a flywheel spinning at 10k rpm, you won't have a space station to try and save; nor the time to try and save it.



The other issue is that (from the nasa interview) flywheels are good to store large amounts of energy, but not small amounts... Making them impractical for small craft.






share|improve this answer











$endgroup$



The other answerers have failed to do their research correctly. NASA and China are both researching this. The idea is it helps increase the life of the battery on board since there are less charge cycles - but a battery is still used because by just using the flywheels for energy storage, the life of the flywheel bearings is reduced. Using both provides the longest lifetime for an unmanned satellite.



Well, the fly wheel to be used for power grid storage is efficient because it's lightweight; not heavy that the other answerers believe. To be fair to them, JET uses 2 775 ton fly wheels, which spin up to 225 rpm, but they were built 30 years ago, and getting slow heavy wheels is significantly easier than fast light ones.



Energy stored is linear with mass, but squared with velocity - so by having a lighter wheel of half the mass that can spin double the speed without tearing itself apart, double the energy is stored.



These fly wheels are suspended by magnets in a vacuum; and allowed to spin to huge velocities.



So in principle - putting them in space would actually make life much much easier for the vacuum side of the problem. The magnets to stop it hitting the ship aren't particularly light, but can clearly be scaled down for a ship rather than a city; And you could counter any imbalance of rotation forces by having 2 spin in opposite directions.



The problem is the amount of damage that can be done if things go wrong on a manned ship. If a battery goes wrong on a manned ship and you have a fire, you can implement emergency measures, seal the area with the batteries, and eject them. Granted not ideal, but it solves the problem. If something goes wrong with a flywheel spinning at 10k rpm, you won't have a space station to try and save; nor the time to try and save it.



The other issue is that (from the nasa interview) flywheels are good to store large amounts of energy, but not small amounts... Making them impractical for small craft.







share|improve this answer














share|improve this answer



share|improve this answer








edited Jan 11 at 0:37

























answered Jan 9 at 17:51









UKMonkeyUKMonkey

1635




1635








  • 3




    $begingroup$
    Name one current satellite that uses flywheels to store energy.
    $endgroup$
    – Hobbes
    Jan 9 at 18:08






  • 4




    $begingroup$
    And flywheels are anything but lightweight. I've provided numbers, if you know better provide a reference.
    $endgroup$
    – Hobbes
    Jan 9 at 18:09






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    No current satellite uses magnetic bearings, as far as I know, and while the paper linked describes a theoretical way to integrate energy storage and attitude control, few or no satellites have yet implemented this. (And, of course, if you have a functional set of flywheels, using them also for energy storage costs no extra mass. This doesn't mean it would be worthwhile to scale them up to use nothing else, or worthwhile to use them on a launch vehicle.)
    $endgroup$
    – Nathan Tuggy
    Jan 9 at 18:11








  • 2




    $begingroup$
    @Hobbes You're right, they're not currently in use, theyre in current research. The point is, they're not a crazy idea... And I've updated the answer to reflect
    $endgroup$
    – UKMonkey
    Jan 9 at 18:47






  • 3




    $begingroup$
    note that the question was about launchers, not satellites, i.e. a lifetime of 10 minutes to 4 hours and no recharging.
    $endgroup$
    – Hobbes
    Jan 9 at 19:02














  • 3




    $begingroup$
    Name one current satellite that uses flywheels to store energy.
    $endgroup$
    – Hobbes
    Jan 9 at 18:08






  • 4




    $begingroup$
    And flywheels are anything but lightweight. I've provided numbers, if you know better provide a reference.
    $endgroup$
    – Hobbes
    Jan 9 at 18:09






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    No current satellite uses magnetic bearings, as far as I know, and while the paper linked describes a theoretical way to integrate energy storage and attitude control, few or no satellites have yet implemented this. (And, of course, if you have a functional set of flywheels, using them also for energy storage costs no extra mass. This doesn't mean it would be worthwhile to scale them up to use nothing else, or worthwhile to use them on a launch vehicle.)
    $endgroup$
    – Nathan Tuggy
    Jan 9 at 18:11








  • 2




    $begingroup$
    @Hobbes You're right, they're not currently in use, theyre in current research. The point is, they're not a crazy idea... And I've updated the answer to reflect
    $endgroup$
    – UKMonkey
    Jan 9 at 18:47






  • 3




    $begingroup$
    note that the question was about launchers, not satellites, i.e. a lifetime of 10 minutes to 4 hours and no recharging.
    $endgroup$
    – Hobbes
    Jan 9 at 19:02








3




3




$begingroup$
Name one current satellite that uses flywheels to store energy.
$endgroup$
– Hobbes
Jan 9 at 18:08




$begingroup$
Name one current satellite that uses flywheels to store energy.
$endgroup$
– Hobbes
Jan 9 at 18:08




4




4




$begingroup$
And flywheels are anything but lightweight. I've provided numbers, if you know better provide a reference.
$endgroup$
– Hobbes
Jan 9 at 18:09




$begingroup$
And flywheels are anything but lightweight. I've provided numbers, if you know better provide a reference.
$endgroup$
– Hobbes
Jan 9 at 18:09




1




1




$begingroup$
No current satellite uses magnetic bearings, as far as I know, and while the paper linked describes a theoretical way to integrate energy storage and attitude control, few or no satellites have yet implemented this. (And, of course, if you have a functional set of flywheels, using them also for energy storage costs no extra mass. This doesn't mean it would be worthwhile to scale them up to use nothing else, or worthwhile to use them on a launch vehicle.)
$endgroup$
– Nathan Tuggy
Jan 9 at 18:11






$begingroup$
No current satellite uses magnetic bearings, as far as I know, and while the paper linked describes a theoretical way to integrate energy storage and attitude control, few or no satellites have yet implemented this. (And, of course, if you have a functional set of flywheels, using them also for energy storage costs no extra mass. This doesn't mean it would be worthwhile to scale them up to use nothing else, or worthwhile to use them on a launch vehicle.)
$endgroup$
– Nathan Tuggy
Jan 9 at 18:11






2




2




$begingroup$
@Hobbes You're right, they're not currently in use, theyre in current research. The point is, they're not a crazy idea... And I've updated the answer to reflect
$endgroup$
– UKMonkey
Jan 9 at 18:47




$begingroup$
@Hobbes You're right, they're not currently in use, theyre in current research. The point is, they're not a crazy idea... And I've updated the answer to reflect
$endgroup$
– UKMonkey
Jan 9 at 18:47




3




3




$begingroup$
note that the question was about launchers, not satellites, i.e. a lifetime of 10 minutes to 4 hours and no recharging.
$endgroup$
– Hobbes
Jan 9 at 19:02




$begingroup$
note that the question was about launchers, not satellites, i.e. a lifetime of 10 minutes to 4 hours and no recharging.
$endgroup$
– Hobbes
Jan 9 at 19:02


















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%2f33445%2frocket-flywheel-instead-of-battery-generator-crazy-idea%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

Human spaceflight

Can not write log (Is /dev/pts mounted?) - openpty in Ubuntu-on-Windows?

File:DeusFollowingSea.jpg