Damn! I feel foolish, should have looked this up first. Thanks!
EDIT: OK, so simple design try #2: What about a quadcopter (with counter-rotating propellers of course to cancel out torque) but where the propellers are angled away from the center of mass instead of just pointing straight down—that way if the craft starts tilting in some direction, it will have an imbalance of forces such that more of the upward component comes from the side that is tilting down, and less from the side that is tilting up, and so the former side will rise and the latter side will fall, and it’ll be not-tilted again. This was the other idea I had, but I wrote the U-shaped thing because it took fewer words to explain. … is this wrong too? EDIT: Now I’m worried this is wrong too for the same reason… damn… I guess I’m still just very confused about the pendulum rocket fallacy and why it’s a fallacy. I should go read more.)
Damn! I feel foolish, should have looked this up first. Thanks!
EDIT: OK, so simple design try #2: What about a quadcopter (with counter-rotating propellers of course to cancel out torque) but where the propellers are angled away from the center of mass instead of just pointing straight down—that way if the craft starts tilting in some direction, it will have an imbalance of forces such that more of the upward component comes from the side that is tilting down, and less from the side that is tilting up, and so the former side will rise and the latter side will fall, and it’ll be not-tilted again. This was the other idea I had, but I wrote the U-shaped thing because it took fewer words to explain. … is this wrong too? EDIT: Now I’m worried this is wrong too for the same reason… damn… I guess I’m still just very confused about the pendulum rocket fallacy and why it’s a fallacy. I should go read more.)