Please help point out any inconsistency or gaffe in this reasoning:
Imagine 2 objects centrifuging/orbiting each other connected by carbon nanofiber. At the middle of this connection a 3rd object hooks up with more fiber. Object 3 pulls the fiber connecting objects 1 & 2, let's say direction X, taking their centrifugal/orbital energy, pulling them closer, and moving in the direction X of the pull, while objects 1 & 2 move far less in the opposite direction, -X.
Normally and in passivity these objects would keep their momentum and balance out, but these are active objects that will synchronize their pulling as needed to guide the forces to not balance out, to travel through space as the premise of this post says. So, objects 1 & 2 would be pulled closer, balancing the active pull forces and centrifuge with each other, keeping the wire connecting them tight, and transferring their energy to the movement of the 3rd object. But once the 3rd object surpasses the wire, it stops pulling and just keeps traveling in the X direction. Objects 1 & 2 would still be traveling in the -X direction, but this is when they pull each other until they touch and stay together. At this moment, object 3 can pull the combined objects 1 & 2 in the X direction, and the same force that would cause object 3 to lose its inertia gained would give objects 1 & 2 much more inertia in the X direction.
When touching, gyroscopes and solar panels on objects 1 & 2 will give them rotational energy, to compensate for any that got lost pulling object 3. Once they got enough energy to widen again their centrifuge stance, and are in a favourable position ahead for object 3 to pull them again, they split and resume their position of centrifuge/orbit, and the cycle starts again.
This is not a perpetum mobile device or other quasi-magical structure. This takes energy from the sun, or batteries, or lasers, and turns it into angular momentum, which, through geometry and time, gets rearranged to get inertia and movement in a particular direction. But this seems too good to be true, with much need to peer-reviewed. The problem is that, so far, we haven't seen the fault in this. If the connections are flexible, not rigid, and we use pull instead of push, it seems to be a working model of propulsionless space travel. Not only, but also this seems like a good way to do interstellar and even intergalactic travel if we dare be optimistic about it. The orbiting objects may be fuel storage tanks, and the gyroscopes might be fed through it rather than solar or lasers, and still get more efficiency out of fuel consumption than the thruster rockets. Which is why, either we have got something very wrong here, or, this is propulsionless space travel.
The above described setup is the simplest, for explanation purpose. Better setups would include 3 orbiting/centrifuging objects, so that the pull to their center has a tighter line with less loss to keep the line tight. Also, object 3 in the explanation could in fact be a duo/trio of objects that are in their stage of recharging spin, and that once they surpass the already expanded structure (objects '1 & 2'), they centrifuge away the parts, becoming the pulling part, swapping roles.
If you like propulsionless space travel, but think it there must be something wrong there that we are not seeing, and feel perplexed to invest direct energies into because of this,, here is something with no glitch in it from the same people: 'Building A Universe Competition' #BAUniC - searching for the formula of the universe among the fractals with an open mind. Can be found at baunic.blogspot.com and all over minds.com with #BAUniC hashtag. The #FractalUniverseRevolution is unstoppable, and A.I. + tech in general + you sharing this can only speed it up. Propulsionless space travel may allow us to surpass some space limitations, but the formula of the universe would allow us to surpass physics itself!
Thank you in advance
May your paths be safe and adventures fun!