Would a grinding machine be a simple and workable propulsion system for an interplanetary spacecraft? The Next CEO of Stack OverflowWhy not use tap-off gas for repressurization for a simple rocket engine cycle?Is a spherical rocket design a plausible replacement for current designs today?Pulse Rocket EngineWould a rotating wheel spacecraft “flip”?Is spacecraft propulsion observable in space?How 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?Very Low Gravity Bicycle

Why is quantifier elimination desirable for a given theory?

How did people program for Consoles with multiple CPUs?

Example of a Mathematician/Physicist whose Other Publications during their PhD eclipsed their PhD Thesis

What does "Its cash flow is deeply negative" mean?

The exact meaning of 'Mom made me a sandwich'

Is there a difference between "Fahrstuhl" and "Aufzug"

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

How to count occurrences of text in a file?

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

Prepend last line of stdin to entire stdin

I believe this to be a fraud - hired, then asked to cash check and send cash as Bitcoin

Make solar eclipses exceedingly rare, but still have new moons

Is wanting to ask what to write an indication that you need to change your story?

Help understanding this unsettling image of Titan, Epimetheus, and Saturn's rings?

Which one is the true statement?

How many extra stops do monopods offer for tele photographs?

Why isn't the Mueller report being released completely and unredacted?

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

How to sed chunks text from a stream of files from find

Why this way of making earth uninhabitable in Interstellar?

What flight has the highest ratio of time difference to flight time?

No sign flipping while figuring out the emf of voltaic cell?

Why did CATV standarize in 75 ohms and everyone else in 50?

Easy to read palindrome checker



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



The Next CEO of Stack OverflowWhy not use tap-off gas for repressurization for a simple rocket engine cycle?Is a spherical rocket design a plausible replacement for current designs today?Pulse Rocket EngineWould a rotating wheel spacecraft “flip”?Is spacecraft propulsion observable in space?How 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?Very Low Gravity Bicycle










3












$begingroup$


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









$endgroup$







  • 1




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















3












$begingroup$


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









$endgroup$







  • 1




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













3












3








3





$begingroup$


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 engine-design physics design-alternative






share|improve this question













share|improve this question











share|improve this question




share|improve this question










asked 2 hours ago









HRIATEXPHRIATEXP

1726




1726







  • 1




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












  • 1




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







1




1




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




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










2 Answers
2






active

oldest

votes


















3












$begingroup$

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









$endgroup$




















    1












    $begingroup$

    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









    $endgroup$













      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

























      2 Answers
      2






      active

      oldest

      votes








      2 Answers
      2






      active

      oldest

      votes









      active

      oldest

      votes






      active

      oldest

      votes









      3












      $begingroup$

      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









      $endgroup$

















        3












        $begingroup$

        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









        $endgroup$















          3












          3








          3





          $begingroup$

          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 43 mins ago









          Everyday AstronautEveryday Astronaut

          2,217832




          2,217832





















              1












              $begingroup$

              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









              $endgroup$

















                1












                $begingroup$

                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









                $endgroup$















                  1












                  1








                  1





                  $begingroup$

                  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 21 mins ago









                  GregGreg

                  83137




                  83137



























                      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

                      Can not update quote_id field of “quote_item” table magento 2Magento 2.1 - We can't remove the item. (Shopping Cart doesnt allow us to remove items before becomes empty)Add value for custom quote item attribute using REST apiREST API endpoint v1/carts/cartId/items always returns error messageCorrect way to save entries to databaseHow to remove all associated quote objects of a customer completelyMagento 2 - Save value from custom input field to quote_itemGet quote_item data using quote id and product id filter in Magento 2How to set additional data to quote_item table from controller in Magento 2?What is the purpose of additional_data column in quote_item table in magento2Set Custom Price to Quote item magento2 from controller

                      How to solve knockout JS error in Magento 2 Planned maintenance scheduled April 23, 2019 at 23:30 UTC (7:30pm US/Eastern) Announcing the arrival of Valued Associate #679: Cesar Manara Unicorn Meta Zoo #1: Why another podcast?(Magento2) knockout.js:3012 Uncaught ReferenceError: Unable to process bindingUnable to process binding Knockout.js magento 2Cannot read property `scopeLabel` of undefined on Product Detail PageCan't get Customer Data on frontend in Magento 2Magento2 Order Summary - unable to process bindingKO templates are not loading in Magento 2.1 applicationgetting knockout js error magento 2Product grid not load -— Unable to process binding Knockout.js magento 2Product form not loaded in magento2Uncaught ReferenceError: Unable to process binding “if: function()return (isShowLegend()) ” magento 2

                      Nissan Patrol Зміст Перше покоління — 4W60 (1951-1960) | Друге покоління — 60 series (1960-1980) | Третє покоління (1980–2002) | Четверте покоління — Y60 (1987–1998) | П'яте покоління — Y61 (1997–2013) | Шосте покоління — Y62 (2010- ) | Посилання | Зноски | Навігаційне менюОфіційний український сайтТест-драйв Nissan Patrol 2010 7-го поколінняNissan PatrolКак мы тестировали Nissan Patrol 2016рвиправивши або дописавши її