Can We Throw Satellites to Space? - SpinLaunch

[@RealEngineering]

This has been in the works for about 3 months now. Our first full documentary shoot. There is a lot of negativity in the comments from people who have not even watched the video yet. This channel is about being positive about engineering. Encouraging and inspiring the next generation of engineers. If you are looking for a channel that focuses on being negative and adds nothing to world, you have come to the wrong place. It's so much easier to point out what's hard, than using your brain to think of solutions. That's not what engineers do. We find problems, and then we find solutions. If you don't think a company that's trying to throw satellites into space, and has already built a 1/3rd prototype, isn't insanely cool. I don't know what to do for ye. That's badass. Whether they succeed or not is irrelevant. It's not your investment money they are using, chill out.

[@pseudotasuki]

They've watched the video made by a chemist who is notoriously bad at analyzing aerospace projects.

[@majstor76]

This isn't insanely cool, its idiotic and wasting of money. You could have found better subject for your documentary.

[@TheLampMan-JaE]

Seriously. It's all too easy for us as Humans to go all negative especially when concerning new or weird things. Will this project and ones like it actually be able to pan out? maybe not. But this trial-and-error approach to problems and crazy ideas are how we come up with solutions to problems we did not even know existed.

[@RealEngineering]

@Fourier21 "Skeptical thinking". Personally I prefer critical thinking

[@goldenageofdinosaurs7192]

@Fourier21 Just being negative isn’t skeptical thinking.

[@thejesuschrist]

You never disappoint me. This was a glorious video! Thank you.

[@RealEngineering]

Thank you Jesus. It was lovely meeting you last month. Blessings upon you

[@abhinav.robinson]

@@RealEngineering 👀 say what?!

[@dogteam6178]

Wait what

[@SD-tj5dh]

@@abhinav.robinson he had a go in spin launch too. Got to see Jesus up close.

[@joecaner]

That's high praise coming from Jesus.

[@ocscmike]

Oh wow. I love this new format! Great to see you on camera. The quality of this documentary reminds me of the Discovery channel when I was a kid... way back before it got overtaken by reality shows.

[@Rickjmt]

@@ollllj 👋 Bye

[@mattblack6736]

@@ollllj Why don't you try communicating your issues like an adult before hijacking a comment to announce your departure.

[@gamma_02]

Yeah! This is awesome!

[@SF-li9kh]

Lol. Why is it a scam ? Not a single argument. Just a statement thrown in. Lol

[@fleyua7176]

@@ollllj This scam channel with a fake engineer is just as bad has the hyperloop. Driven by hype and taking advantage of the gullible.

[@jonathanwiedenheft1956]

“It’s a door closing, I don’t know what to ask” “It’s really important not til let air back in“ I love engineering XD

[@cetomedo]

I find it quite funny that the only piece of technology that was important enough to keep as a trade secret was how to close doors really, really fast.

[@the_undead]

I don't think it's so much the door itself but the control circuitry to close it as fast as it needs to be closed. And showing off the door mechanism might help somebody figure that part out

[@kanavsachdeva5093]

They also didn't show the exact mechanism they are using to launch the rocket after it has gained enough KE

[@5commandomerc]

I wonder, if the military industrial complex has got their greasy meat hooks in this yet???!....

[@Helmy67]

Maybe using car's airbag will do the trick 😂

[@Helmy67]

​@@kanavsachdeva5093yes, I'm wondering about this exact point.

[@Ididathing]

Great video! Loved the format!

[@Marzahl]

sounds like a fun idea for a saw blade launcher

[@MoringAfterStar]

My Australian friend, spin launch is as useful as double condom socks.

[@神林しマイケル]

Wow you did a thing.

[@berndderbratan]

Spin launched drone darts?

[@MoringAfterStar]

@@berndderbratan well you demonstrated you're the brains of this operation.

[@viski2528]

I love that a engineer with a degree used "yeet" as a technical term

[@juhotuho10]

It's applicable and accurate in this context so why not

[@boxhead6177]

Oh my god.... I want control to say "3...2...1... We Have Yeet!!!"

[@BoGy1980]

engineer with a degree??? a degree in scamming probably yeah

[@ninjahustler897]

Also said "just the tip"

[@Gjcz1579]

Still not getting over that "yeet" is now a technical term

[@Qualle80]

5:35 "SpinLaunch aims to YEET its aeroshell..." It's so simple, yet so incredibly funny.

[@ArchAngel-FJB]

I had to stop the video to see if anyone else lol when he said that. Glad to know I'm not alone🤣🤣

[@FectacularSpail]

Yeah, there's no way I'm not gonna call this thing the Space Yeeter.

[@nathanhamers9160]

I like how it's now a scientific term 😂

[@i2awi]

I'm so glad others noticed that!

[@davidblair9877]

I came for a YEET reference and I was not disappointed.

[@jamestheredd]

The term "yeet" at 5:35 is both a very accurate and a much appreciated addition to this presentation.

[@RookFNReyes]

Lmaooo idk why this comment got me laughing

[@robertrishel3685]

100%

[@parthingsdotcom]

Completely agreed; I bust out laughing

[@AnnoyingNewslettersPage6]

I would love to see something like this built on the moon for launching unmanned missions further into space.

[@randomdude189]

This might actually work on the moon lol

[@Leon_Schuit]

@@randomdude189 The moon does seem like a really good environment for this type of launch indeed, especially due to the lack of an atmosphere. You'll probably still need some kind of fast moving doors to keep the dust out though.

[@EldersOfTheInternet]

Was thinking something similar but in orbit... Only slight orbital adjustments needed to dock, no issues with air friction which simplifies the device. Delta-v from LEO to say a Mars transfer is slightly less than half (i think?) needed to get to LEO, so you could possibly launch heavier payloads on a chemical-fuelled rocket for an orbital slingshot to Mars. The moon idea is awesome too and would make sense when there's manufacturing capabilities up there. Edit: I forgot to consider the 150MW energy requirement. That would require a huge solar array so LEO might be out of the question...

[@andreubs]

This concept would be ideal to launch raw materials from mining sites on the surface of the moon or asteroids. Could be the cheapest way to assemble a city-sized space station for example.

[@Seehart]

It's not really needed on the moon. Reaching escape velocity from the moon is rather easy. 2.4km/s (mach 7), and no atmosphere to contend with. But you really only need orbital velocity around 1.6km/s because low power acceleration such as a plasma drive will get you from orbit to wherever you need to go. A linear railgun would do fine to reach orbit or even escape velocity, and much easier on the payload than a spin-launch device. The motivation for spin-launch makes more sense on Earth where we have the tyranny of the rocket equation to content with.

[@GregConquest]

@18:54 When the secondary door closes, it appears to be a pressurized fabric, very much like a car airbag, which are also super fast in deployment. They would also release minimal air into the system. I guess once sealed, then the regular door can be more slowly slid into place. Interesting workaround for this problem.

[@AMurderOfLobs]

If I were a billionaire my first purchase of egregious excess would be the installation of that rapid air lock mechanism as the front door of my home. Just imagine how satisfying it would be to actuate a door slam of that ferocity on Jehova's Witnesses, Girl Scouts, In-Laws, new-ex-girlfriends, etc... Your ex shows up babbling about some bullshit like: "Oh heyyy stranger lol don't mean to be awwwk but I think I left my neti pot here and you know how my nasal pass-" SLAAAAAAAAM!!!

[@anonanon6947]

I watched it a few times in slow motion.. I believe it's somewhat of a normal door, with a shell and spring system. Sort of like a trampoline. There seems to be a cushion layer on top but I think for the most part its a solid door and not a pressurized fabric which adds to complexity and maintenance.

[@kevincronk7981]

It looks to me more like it's just a normal door and just with such a high speed collision even a solid object can seem somewhat malleable

[@goldcd]

@@anonanon6947 I'd also have thought that the incoming air-pressure would help with a solid door i.e. When the rocket has pierced the outer skin, all that atmospheric pressure is going to rush into the launch tube. If you can at least get the door away from the side of the tube, that'll help slam that rigid door shut. World's most powerful door slam? You can also see the door's concave, which'll help. Maybe that's why you see the 'judder' when it closes in the lab when both sides are at atmospheric pressure.

[@MaxThomas79]

@@AMurderOfLobs Billionaires usually have a gate outside their homes, so you never have to deal with someone unwelcome knocking.

[@oncorhynchusnerka3900]

There has to be an error in the altitude vs time graph at 32:16… they’re going at Mach 6 (i.e. 2 km/s at MSL), yet you have them riding up to nearly 80 km of altitude in just 1 second. At that point you’ve got an interplanetary mass driver on your hands

[@jakejones2126]

I think this graph would make sense if the time axis was changed from seconds to minutes. This would result in an initial slope at the very start of about 120km/minute which is 2km/s. After 1 minute has passed the slope has almost halved to 1km/s, which sort of agrees with the 19.8m/s^2 initial deceleration value he stated earlier.

[@josiah3807]

Yes, that is definitely an error. The time graph needs to be extended at least two times, perhaps three times to get an accurate representation at the specified launch velocity. This also means that the projectile will be experiencing atmospheric drag for much longer than is being suggest in the video, and in turn there is going to be much more thermal energy (due to the duration) being transferred into the body (potentially damaging internal components). A ceramic tip will better resist thermal transfer (approx. 10 times less thermally conductive) over a greater duration of exposure to hypersonic drag.

[@blumousey]

Agree the scale must be wrong on either axis - I think the comment above must be right, the time is in minutes not seconds

[@cogoid]

@@jakejones2126 The bottom graph does make more sense with the time scale in minutes. But the top graph seems to be correct as it is -- the air density drops two-fold at 6 km altitude, which would be reached in a few seconds with 2 km/s initial velocity.

[@jakejones2126]

@@cogoid Yep, I agree.

[@AlchemistCH]

I think I see why the release mechanism was kept a secret. It's another ultra-fine timed system. You can't just release the capsule from a centrifuge and expect it fly like a bullet. It will be tossed in a straight line, yes, but it still will be spinning at the same angular velocity! So it has to be two locks (may be more, but that gets even more complicated), releasing the front one first and letting the rear one impart the angular momentum to stop the bullet from spinning and then releasing it just in time.

[@phnix6242]

I guarantee you This is absolute rubbish It cant work the math is conpletely obvious…… They are fooling gullible people to buy into this. They will have their IPO and its gonna gall apart like Theranos, Nikola Trucks, and other scams. MSM is compliant

[@brendenbaxter5304]

You explained that really well.

[@jarrydharris5378]

You know

[@tartarsauce447]

glad somebody pointed that out

[@mdude7778]

Arrrrg, rotational inertia be a harsh mistress.

[@paiganjadoth144]

Has anyone ever thought about that such a system wouldn't need to launch complex systems (satellites etc) to be viable, but just mere materials? Ideally homogenous blocks of it. Like building materials for space stations. Or supplies. 200 kg of aluminium plates or such. 200 kg of food. 200 kg of plain water. 200 kg of fuel. Trivial things that are INCREDIBLY expensive to bring into space via rocket but are perfectly suited for a spin launch system. Perfectly located center of mass. No vibrations.

[@rusher2937]

You need to bring those supplies to a stable orbit first, for which you'll need a powered upper stage, which needs a guidance system, which will have to withstand the extreme G load.

[@dam78]

the food will experiences 10 times its own mass

[@JCAtkeson3]

Yes raw materials for space manufacturing. Also look up John Hunter's 'Cannons to the Planets' lecture, same ideas, different launch system.

[@paiganjadoth144]

@@rusher2937 Good point. That's always the same system, however. It can be designed once to withstand the G load and then you're done. The payload can be physically trivial that has no problem getting a lot of G load. Like water or metal or fuel.

[@TamrenStarshadow]

​@@rusher2937 That's not as difficult as it sounds. There are already electronic GPS guidance systems that can survive ~15000g, they are used in guided artillery shells. I'd be more worried about the other rocket parts like the valves and other liquid handling systems. The propellant tanks in particular will have to be very strong.

[@nickcave5947]

I love how you describe every single problem the engineers faced when designing this contraption. From basic vacuum concepts to intricate equations that describe every step of the way. In particular, I love the part where you said it would have to spin at Mach 6 which simply baffled me. Thank you for your great work in researching and describing these marvels of engineering.

[@akulkis]

What exactly does Mach 6 mean in a vacuum? The entire thing is inane.

[@sebasstein7014]

@@akulkis If it pleases you more you can transfer it to kmh, m\s, mph, fps or whatever by using the approximate number they probably had in mind when saying mach which is 1235kmh

[@nickcave5947]

@@akulkis I believe Mach 6 is used as a simple measurement of sound, in this case, 6 times the speed of sound. Thus, mach 6 is just 6 times the speed of sound in a vacuum.

[@vibaj16]

@@nickcave5947 the speed of sound in a vacuum is 0 m/s

[@nickcave5947]

@@vibaj16 I see, I saw it as a mere unit of measurement to simply compare it to the speed of sound in one earth’s atmosphere. Thank you for clarifying!

[@150Gianluca]

The in depth discussion about vacuum pumps was fantastic!

[@pollywanda]

How large can one make a sling shot device?

[@150Gianluca]

@@pollywanda 40 meters

[@kentslocum]

I have to admit, they were blowing me away with the description of pumping individual molecules--then they said "but we don't need all that!"

[@PronteCo]

It was! That's a fairly common instrument that the general public knows very little about, it was very nice to learn more

[@Ddub1083]

@@kentslocum they made a whole bunch of cgi for funding discussions and they wanted to show all the videos. haha Youll notice every time they show it flinging a payload there are trees all around it but the site they are at.... clearly no trees

[@blackdog6969]

A trebuchet in the shape of a turbocharger, yeeting missiles into space? I love it

[@510Redneck]

The key to space lift off is now in the shape of everything turbocharger housings it seems, the modern alternatives use turbochargers to pump gases to be burnt. 😆

[@blackdog6969]

@@510Redneck It's the power of the spiral man XD. Phi ain't no joke

[@timsullivan4566]

One of my favorite videos thus far from this channel. Neither dumbed-down nor overly-challenging - I think you found the Goldilocks "Just right" level.

[@timballam3675]

What is the kinetic energy of the projectile when released? Now think where the force opposing that energy (accelerating it towards the center) goes on release of the projectile.

[@andrewvanderwolff1226]

@@timballam3675 9

[@ShomeAvi]

He be thinking: I made a low level too easy video..meh..had to improve next time

[@weblure]

Just another vaporware company getting hyped up by clueless KZbinrs with 0 foresight

[@kamakaziozzie3038]

@@andrewvanderwolff1226 1.21 Jiggawatts

[@SeanHodgins]

I'm rooting for them just for the "fun" engineering aspect alone!

[@thunderb00m]

It's a money pit that's not worth it. There are much better approaches that could have been explored.

[@pseudotasuki]

Agreed. The odds of success are pretty low, but people need to try new ideas.

[@pseudotasuki]

@@thunderb00m Like what?

[@lunaticbz3594]

@@thunderb00m I think this could be a great idea on the moon, or any other airless body. On Earth.. I am very skeptical of the idea.

[@SF-li9kh]

The Movember guy was super knowledgeable

[@diegomesa6336]

The low level of English that I manage has been enough to learn tons of new things thanks to you and this new type of format. I have no words to thank you for the time spent to create this amazing work. I send you greetings from a small town in the mountains of Colombia. !!

[@mjallen1308]

23:34 Drinking game: take a shot every time this guy says “you know”

[@jarrydharris5378]

No my liver can’t you know, take it anymore. Had a carton in you know about 30 seconds… You know.

[@tehspamgozehere]

I'm, you know, glad I wasn't, you know, the only, you know, one to, you know, notice this. Auuugh! I'm of a generation in which CB radios were a big thing. Which often meant that during a half duplex broadcast, any pause in speech needed to be filled with noise of some kind so the other end didn't think you'd stopped broadcasting. So 'Um' and 'err' and 'ahh' and similar noises are inserted into gaps when the brain is trying to catch up. It's a bad habit, but there's some sense in it's origin. The 'you know's inserted every few words likely serve a similar purpose. Filler while the brain updates what's going on. Those fillers are also often used as a way of not giving someone else an opening into which to start talking, sort of an anti-interruption method or (with some people) a dominance thing. Though this guy doesn't seem to be doing that. More of a nervous tic sorta habit.

[@veritas41photo]

I'm sorry, but anyone using "you know" every three seconds when explaining something marks that person as unable to really explain anything.

[@sforza209]

You guys don’t know though

[@howardbartlett3419]

For anyone who has heard of the Sprint anti-ICBM missile from the 1970's, this is completely feasible to make function as intended, albeit quite difficult. For anyone who doesn't know, the Sprint was a high velocity direct interception missile that would reach Mach 10 within 5 seconds of launch from the ground, going through a similar flight regime in many aspects to what spin-launch's vehicle would have to endure. On top of that, the acceleration of the vehicle during the initial phase of a sprint launch is significantly higher than what the spin-launch would impart on a launch vehicle. Once again with that being said, what they are trying to do is incredibly difficult (some might even say a bit crazy), but the system truly does seem to be possible and I hope to see them achieve a successful orbital launch in the near future.

[@TricksterJ97]

The Sprint missile accelerated at 100 g for 5 seconds. The spin launch vehicle is subject to up to 10,000 g for much longer as it spins up. So, the Spin Launch acceleration is much, much greater than Sprint’s.

[@patrickday4206]

@@TricksterJ97 your math is wrong your quoting the weight on the arm

[@RovingTroll]

Oh my god my mind was blown at 38:55. It makes so much sense but it was also the largest hurdle I personally thought. Of course the components are low mass, so their momentum is negligible, so they're unlikely to change their physical shape during gradual increases in g-load, because their internal weight is so much lower than their tensile strength, even under high g load

[@bigcnmmerb0873]

Same U spent the vid thinking how TF is the sat itself not getting crushed by itself, and him bringing up the mass factor had me smacking my head like OFC.

[@fuglbird]

@RovingTroll The increase in acceleration is gradual but the decrease during release is not. The tension is released almost instantaneously exciting all the transverse vibrational modes of the rocket and payload. Testing components in a centrifuge slowly running up and slowly stopping doesn't represent the loading during launch. The launch system itself as shown in this video is rather basic engineering. Seeing design ideas for components that can survive that would be very interesting.

[@chuckintexas]

@@fuglbird - "The tension is released almost instantaneously exciting all the transverse vibrational modes of the rocket and payload. " - ALL at the SAME TIME , so ALL system-mass moves the SAME DIRECTION _AT_ the same TIME , eliminating relative forces that would have the destructive effect you describe . *THEY* are _DOING_ - even AT this _early_ stage of Engineering Development , while WE are sitting on our couches COMENTING , NOT having "done the math" .

[@skyeline9228]

I will admit, this video answered my questions about the door mechanism (which was only a membrane before). Many other aspects of the system are clearly feasible, such as the low atmosphere vessel, and energy requirements. However, I do not feel like the enough information was given on how the vehicle/payload would deal with high shock events, and they are clearly hiding their release mechanism design. And yes, that release mechanism will be proprietary, but it should be the biggest concern for potential investors, as the loads it must endure are very high and it must release the vehicle in nearly an instant without imparting any significant torque. I still don't believe the project can scale up, but I will be happy to be proven wrong, if they can pull it off.

[@tristancoffin]

Smite the redditor

[@Squid728]

Well they hide cause if they dont its proberly get stealed [stolen but who cares about Grammar and correct spelling amyways, thats the fucking Internet] (i mean the idea and system,not the parts itself ofc)

[@AnyBodyWannaPeanut]

@@Squid728 "stealed" lol You never heard of stolen?

[@Piddlefoots]

Scam... kzbin.info/www/bejne/b6vMeHxmnp6JmKc

[@Squid728]

@@AnyBodyWannaPeanut no English is not my main language And i am a simple person Past is for me: word+ ed Nothing else

[@andrewzeilbeck405]

I'm nowhere near an engineer. But, just curious, rather than releasing an equal mass counterweight for balance that requires clean-up (and I assume dirties up the vacuum), could the counterweight be a magnetic load that simply gets turned off at the time of release?

[@xpt5oo186]

This sounds like a really good idea. That way they can adjust the counterweight for each launch just by adjusting the current in the coil rather than making different counterweights for each payload.

[@danielch6662]

Don't get it. This magnetic load is exerted in what direction? What against what? And how does an electromagnet that can be turned on and off generate mass to counterbalance the load? The counterbalancing thing is not weight, it is mass.

[@xpt5oo186]

@@danielch6662 The magnet can be attracted to the surrounding circumference metal sheet (maybe place another magnet in the circle which is driven in phase with the rotating arm) so one side of the arm gets constant pull which does not have the rocket and when we release the payload the instantly turn off the magnet

[@cannonfodder4854]

@@xpt5oo186 my opinion, simplest solution is to take a counterweight on the counter weight side but close to the centre then push it to the throwing arm side as the payload is released.

[@FrankGutowski-ls8jt]

The imbalance at launch is a fatal, intractable problem. They will never solve it. Building a prototype, proof of concept rebalancing mechanism should have been a first priority. It’s been ignored, except in theory, which means lots of hand waving but no remotely viable solution.

[@chrisevil7012]

an orbital YEET launch system is probably the coolest thing i've heard yet. hopefully they're able to overcome the many barriers to space flight and become a viable solution.

[@ederkinup9160]

graystillplays anyone

[@kodfkdleepd2876]

They just need another billion in investor money! You should sell your house and give it them! They would like to buy another themselves, maybe get a yacht too? I mean, don't hold out! invest in them now!

[@technopriest6708]

@@kodfkdleepd2876 you alright?

[@kodfkdleepd2876]

@@technopriest6708 Hey dude, go infest your life savings with them, ok? They really need your money!! Maybe ask your parents too!

[@yuutonosuri772]

@@kodfkdleepd2876 just ask a billionaire lol

[@Driftingsiax]

I absolutely love that the heart of this concept is “let’s just throw it.”

[@gz6963]

let's throw it really really hard

[@Roughdog86]

26,000 mph is required to escape the Earth's gravitational pull. Unless a chemical rocket is used when the object is thrown, I cannot see this working in the space race.

[@oienu]

​@@Roughdog86 no, the problem is the massive weight, if you could get constant speed you could do it a just 24mph, will take a loooooooooong time but is, in theory at least, possible. If you talk about orbital speed, maybe, but on the vaccum on the space you don have many losses so the small rocket is fine. Just throw it and turn on later to save a lot of fuel.

[@Roughdog86]

@@oienu I understand completely. Thank you for the breakdown. It'll be good to see this thing come to light.

[@mturker100]

This was an impeccable documentary. No fat on it at all and explained exceptionally well.

[@Walkdplankfrank]

how so 42 minutes is a lot!

[@RMDragon3]

I think that the real problem, which I'm a bit dissapointed you couldn't get into in the video, is the release mechanism. At those speeds, even getting it slightly wrong can send the rocket tumbling around out of control. There are many parts where going wrong for the tiniest fraction of a second can have very bad results: at what point in the rotation you release, releasing both the weight and counterweight at the same time, releasing all of the parts attaching the rocket to the rotating arm at the same time (or releasing the very big one cleanly)... It all needs to be timed to perfection, and robust enough to work many times without maintenance (unless they plan on doing maintenance under vacuum). It doesn't mean it's impossible, but I'll believe they have managed to do all of it perfectly and consistently when I see it.

[@Nyx_2142]

I'm sure they definitely needed a random commenter on KZbin to tell them the risks of their own fucking invention

[@RMDragon3]

@@Nyx_2142 well, I really hope they don't need me to tell them the problems, especially after they have build it (at scale). But knowing the problems doesn't mean they know how to fix it. I know the problems, but I certainly don't know how (or even if) it can be solved. And in my comment I very clearly say this doesn't mean it's impossible, just a big challenge that I'm not convinced they can solve well enough to work. In any case, the real point of my comment was complaining how, in a video describing how they have solved the problems of this approach, what I see as one of the biggest problems (and I believe the video agrees with me on that) is explained away with a "I know they definitely solved that problem because they told me they had, they just couldn't tell me how". Don't get me wrong, I understand why they can't say from a business point of view, but I hope you see how them saying that is not enough to convince me, especially when they haven't even been able to test it and prove it works at full scale themselves. Sorry if I was off on any of the details of the video, but it's been 3 months and I'm not rewatching the entire video.

[@jeremymcadam7400]

You'll notice in this video, the vehicle comes out sideways

[@gregoryf9299]

@nyx_2142 it’s more useful to other viewers to help non-mechanically inclined folks understand some of the challenges. Ease up, dude!

[@hamzamalik-ln3ch]

35:45 they actually specifically removed information about the release mechanism. That's why it wasn't in the video. But the issue you raised is certainly something they considered

[@TheLonelyBrit]

I think where this system will work best is in low gravity environments like on the moon. 1) Instead of having to remove the gasses in the spin-launcher, they aren't an issue. 2) No atmosphere in the way, means much higher exit speeds with lower RPM & power requirements. 3) A lot less gravity will mean a lot less loss of momentum. 4) With less severe construction & power constraints you could scale it up even more to send out even larger payloads. I'm not sure how a spin-launch system would fair against something like a railgun approach, but it would be interesting to see how it would compare. Then again, all I've seen about the railgun approach to getting payloads off the moon or Mercury (for a Dyson Swarm) is Kurzgesagt's animations.

[@dirkkarmel5209]

>> Of the many principles: mass & density of the object, are the primary factors. -- Neither of these involve air, or gravity. -- Must consider BOTH properties of density ! ( Amount of mass per volume, AND Stability of the involved mass. ) ???? Sample ???? -- An Unstable mass of stone/gravel, is not suitable. -- a Stable mass of the same sunstance, is suitable ! -- It is easy to create satalites, that are 100% stable mass. (Ballanced & Fixed Distribution of the mass. )

[@MrSamz400]

Great thinking using it on the moon or other planets, I think here on earth, the G forces this thing produces will be too great for alot of the components in the payload.

[@lelandshennett]

I love that you referenced that other video! The amount of excitement and curiosity around science and tech from the general public is so exciting. ( I mean people like me, I’m an artistic person. I’ve never been good at math or science but I absolutely love learning about it)

[@caerusdharken57]

I remember that cannon at the end of the video, he managed to get the projectiles about 100km? into the atmosphere and all he had was two welded together second hand naval guns which were clearly not designed for the task at hand. In the age of optimism there was a saying if you can imagine it you can build it, so let them have at it, we shall see if it works. All the effects and forces at work are known and can be calculated in advance so it should work.. and even if it doesn't work for orbital launch, maybe its the next big thing in intercontinental express deliveries.

[@thealmightyaku-4153]

The guy who designed that stuff, Gerald Bull, was a fascinating guy, and his projects equally so. Ended up assassinated by Mossad (probably) because he was building superguns for Sadam Hussein. Seems like another von Braun: a guy so obsessed with getting to space his way that he was prepared to work with horrendous people. Thankfully SpinLaunch is promising, and seems much less politically volatile.

[@Fluugan]

So long as you only need to send 10 express deliveries in a day... And those deliveries can handle continuous 10.000 gs for an hour while the thing spins up... And you're willing to pay the more than 100x price for delivery at $2500 per kilogram. Then sure, the next big thing!

[@caerusdharken57]

@@Fluugan When you think nobody would buy it there is always that one insanly rich lunatic who prooves that there is a market for everything, no matter how small.

[@stephenhumble7627]

@@thealmightyaku-4153 Spin launch is all spin and it's a dead end. The HARP project was moderately successful in that it got to over 100km altitude. If a second stage been developed perhaps it would reach orbit. Spin launch wont even get to space. The HARP space gun guys actually stopped because they knew even if they succeeded it would not be financially competitive with SpaceX.

[@_xDefine]

​@@stephenhumble7627 ???? SpaceX did not exist in 1967 when the HARP project stopped due lack of govt funding ????

[@ArmorCast]

So why not include a flatter nosecone the way X-15 did? Do the same rules not apply here? Also, why begin at sea level, rather than somewhere with higher elevation? My first thought would be weather effects, but are there any other disadvantages to stationing the SpinLaunch system at say 5,000ft ASL?

[@jordananderson2728]

Probably a matter of accessibility. Carting things to launch rockets and rockets themselves up that far would, outside of a few areas, be extremely difficult.

[@Trahloc]

It's also possible that doing their research at sea level and proving it's viable. Means if they do gain access to an easily accessible location of higher elevation it's easy mode in comparison.

[@jpdemer5]

Set one up on the Colorado high plains, and you do eliminate a mile or so of the most dense atmosphere. You could go higher still (the major mountain passes tend to be served by both road and rail.) The biggest issue with any non-coastal site is the presence of people and structures down range.

[@omni_0101]

My guess is it's negligible at hypersonic speeds

[@james4066]

I imagine it is far cheaper to setup the spinlaunch, with its likely 100s of tons of equipment, somewhere logistically easy to deliver/stage. If you want the 1st stage to go higher, spin faster, don't pay likely millions more to stage on top of a mountain.

[@ethanWELAN]

"That's just the tip..." AMAZING 😮

[@LeftJoystick]

😳

[@DFPercush]

I'm really curious about the release mechanism, because it seems there is some residual angular momentum of the vehicle as it exits the tube, making it come out just a little bit sideways. Do they release the front, then the back, at the same point in the arc, or is it all one mechanism? I think releasing the front and back a millisecond or two apart would allow the back to be torqued around and stop that rotation. That would reduce drag and oscillations in the first moments of flight.

[@eastockerable]

The angular momentum is zero as the tether creates the circular path. Released from the circle equals a tangent to the circle......

[@justynpryce]

It seems the wobble is induced by going through the plastic vacuum seal. We shall see though when they implement the doors.

[@DFPercush]

@@eastockerable You've got two reference frames. One is with respect to the center of the chamber. That gets zeroed out as soon as it's released, you are correct about that. But the other is the orientation of the projectile itself. In a reference frame which follows the position of the projectile but remains oriented to the Earth's coordinate system, the projectile is rotating about itself. That doesn't go away just because the centripetal force of the tether stops accelerating it. That acceleration is linear in the projectile's local space, but the world is moving in a circle around it. You stop the linear acceleration but the world is still spinning. That part is very obviously not zero from the footage. You can try it yourself, hold on to some long thin object like a broom stick, spin around in a circle with a stiff wrist, and let go. It will fly in a straight path (minus gravity) but it will turn sideways.

[@unknownvariable6927]

@@DFPercush I was thinking this was the cause myself. Glad I wasn't crazy. Thanks for the explanation breakdown!

[@m.h.6470]

@@DFPercush which is exactly the reason, why IMHO this will never work. They are imparting to many vectors to the ascending rocket, to make it a viable way. All the other solutions, that were mentioned at the beginning of the video, where straight "cannons", that strictly imparted the upwards vector. That is why they worked. This "monstrosity" creates a tumbling mess.

[@heylolp9]

I myself am a Computational Science major but i am already surrounded by engineering students and this video and especially the reaction to the airlock door speed perfectly summed up why i love engineers. There is no other group of people who can be so happy about a fast closing door because engineering in itself is nothing but a bunch of children not caring if something is possible but with the needed stubbornness to just make it work somehow damn it and in the end it's either amazing or it leads to something new to be curious about

[@anger_birb]

heylo Ip lives up to their profile picture

[@MSinAerospace]

❤ 😊

[@titaniusanglesmith9690]

Most engineers these days are the enemy of the working middle class, if indirectly. Sure, they may improve efficiency but its entirely bankrolled to screw over workers in order to enrich morally bankrupt shareholders

[@OneBiasedOpinion]

I appreciate this comment. Sorry it somehow garnered so much hatred from trolls.

[@NinjaAdorable]

Apparently they forget to teach you how to use punctuation in Computer Science school. And don't dumb down us Engineers. If that wasn't your intention, that's how it came across as.

[@cordellblaine]

Amazing explanation of SpinLaunch, their challenges and their feats thus far!

[@poshhippie6446]

As a rule, I never listen to guys with mustaches and ponytails tell me about how legit their startup is... But this is sick so I want it to be true

[@marcodebruin5370]

When I first heard of SpinLaunch's idea, I though "moving the rocket-fuel away from the launch-vehicle? That makes a lot of sense", from there it just becomes an engineering problem. After the engineering problem it becomes a mere scaling-of-economics problem. Sure, several hurdles to overcome - but I never agreed with the kneejerk "impossible!" reactions, and I for one will keep watching their efforts and hope it they're successful. Their energy-demands also sound like they can be a MUCH greener launch system than any "pure rocket" solution.

[@tevarinvagabond1192]

I don't understand why everyone is talking about "negative" reactions, I've scrolled far into the comments and don't see any. I do know there's a lot of weirdly obsessive Musk fanboys that seem to hate any space project if it isn't SpaceX, which is strange as Musk himself supports other projects as ALL groups that try to go out into space are welcome!

[@olegglushko8124]

@@tevarinvagabond1192 just watch thunderfoot's video on why this is stupid

[@kennethferland5579]

The so called 'knee jerk' impossible response was infact a well articulated critique of DOZENS of points of failure and commercial infeasability in the concepts. The whole project smacked of an attempt to defraud ignorant laymen investors by presenting a solution that simple enough for them to understand and misapply their day-2-day understanding of physics too. The acceleration here is going to destroy any payload in existence, payloads already cost more then the launches they go on, so no one is going to redesign their payload to withstand 9k g's even if the launch was free.

[@ColonelSandersLite]

@@tevarinvagabond1192 If you want the really short condensed version of why this is incredibly dumb, this video points out the problem but glosses right over it. It's at about 5:45. This thing has to pull a sustained 10,000 Gs... You would literally be better off just firing the payload out of a cannon. The G forces are about the same and the payload doesn't need to sustain them for anywhere near as long. And you know what? You *could* do that. They're trying to accelerate a 200kg payload to mach 6. Iowa class Battleships lobbed 1 ton shells at about mach 2. 200x6 = 1200 and 1000x2 = 2000. 2000/1200 = 1.66 And these numbers are rounded *heavily* in spin launch's favor. So every time an Iowa class battleship fired one of it's guns, it did so with 66% *more* kinetic energy than this contraption wants to obtain and it could fire each gun about twice per minute. What's this thing gonna do? Twice per day? Just simplify away from all the needs of a battleship and reduce it to 1 stationary gun without all that armor plate and ship stuff and war fighting stuff and you have something *far* more capable than this design. Oh, wait. They did that already. It was in this video. They called it project harp.

[@hypernovamkvi715]

@@ColonelSandersLite the problem with using Guns (which we did ij the sixties with harp which actually use modified naval gun barrels) was that it would cause a small earth quake every time the gun fired and the boom was loud enough to break windows miles away and was generally not very good. This seems to have greater potential than a gun and generally less negative effects on the surrounding area also harp took a long time to reload and get ready to fire since every time the wanted to load they had to lower the gun then take the old casing out put a new one in and raise the gun and with the immense shoclmof the firing they had to keep everything pretty far from the site of the gun itself. This may be possible through the use of railguns or coil guns given they have much less recoil and Don need to be absolutely huge to achieve the same velocities (Edit) also if harp was truly cheaper then I guarantee you the government would have jumped on the idea however it wasn't at least not back then.

[@vaughnkingston6902]

Makes one appreciate writers like Jules Verne who were ahead of their time.

[@Zandonus]

This makes me think of the Big Gun in quake 2. But yeah. Jules Verne was a boss of his time.

[@sandstar102]

So we go to florida and make a REALLY BIG GUN, make a bullet out of cast iron and shoot people around the moon? Never mind that the crew would be turned into human soup on the inside of the ball as soon as the gun went off, hahaha. Also the fact that on reentry the ball would have hit the ocean with the yield of a small warhead, which is definitely a problem he thought about and decided to entirely gloss over. He's still my favorite writer of all time.

[@yarpenzigrin1893]

Makes one appreciate scientists who can actually do math. This CAN'T work.

[@maxenceleboeuf]

@@sandstar102 But that was the thing with Jules Verne. He wrote stories that sound believable, but would never actually work. From the Earth to the Moon is a good example of this, as well as The Mysterious Island.

[@sandstar102]

@@maxenceleboeuf I mean the volcano was a bit much but the rest of the book was decently plausible. It's also my favorite book ever, lol. The guy was writing to entertain people. I'm sure that if/when we ever colonize space, our descendants are going to roll their eyes at most modern scifi plots. Jules Verne put a lot more effort into his fact checking than like any contemporary writers do. Love him

[@TechnologyGeek862]

Been searching this type of video on spin launch for a while now and did not disappoint. Great work! 😄

[@enolopanr9820]

he completely explains aspects like the required strength of the tether and the absurd speed that this thing would need to spin up to, but hasn't mentioned anything about extreme precision you would need to release the payload with. He said the arm radius is 45 meters long. 2pir gives us the circumference of the loop the payload would be making. About 283 meters. Mach 6 is about 2000 meters per second 2000/283=about 7 rotations per second 7 rotations=about 2500 degrees per second 1 degree every 23 milliseconds They probably only have a tolerance of plus or minus a tenth degree because the arm is so long and one tenth of a degree is about 8 cm so if they are more than 3 milliseconds off (at best), the payload would be destroyed along with the vacuum chamber and there will probably some sort of implosion due to the pressure difference If you have a problem with my math and estimates, do it yourself moron. The actual precision required is likely even higher because of the long cylindrical exit chamber that the payload has to fly through without hitting the walls or the sides of the doors. Not to mention that the doors also have to act with the same insane precision This, while not impossible, seems like a major challenge that wasn't even mentioned in this video!!!!! which makes me doubt weather real engineering is being critical and inquisitive here or just sucking up to them like a fanboy. We are not all just bashing this video, real engineering, and Spinlaunch for the sake of being negative. We all have serous and extremely valid doubts about the sucess of such a system. Why not try to address our questions rather than silencing them?

[@growlith6969]

Climbing a ladder while drinking coffee "Safety third!". Haha, I like these guys. Also, 13:57, both mechanical air pump styles he sited would be superchargers, not turbochargers. The latter being an impeller wheel turned by the flow of exhaust gasses, the former being a screw type mechanically turned kind of thingy.

[@OutsiderLabs]

Reminds me of the attitude OceanGate had

[@BLODSWIPER]

There should be "This is an 3D render" when animations are used and not tests.

[@paxon57]

You can tell easily, most of the stuff on this channel is renders when explaining stuff

[@NimbleBard48]

Is it that hard to notice? I thought humans were a tiny bit more intelligent than that.

[@marchesilvet8096]

Yes, there should be, even if it's obvious. Some clips looks 'too good/futuristic' that I also wonder if they are 3d rendered. And there's also 'too good' renders that I thought they're true... Well, they can just put the "This is a 3d render" on renders irregardless of reason, removes unnecessary confusion.

[@1Hippo]

+1 the quality of renders is constantly improving on this channel, which I appreciate, but it also makes it less obvious what is real footage. Many cinema films already use renders for some parts/scenes and it is not noticeable anymore if properly done.

[@mikeonthebayou]

It’s easy to see, the real ones tumble instead of flying straight.

[@harbl99]

"Their only clue was scrawled at the top of their plans: Spinlaunch, a space catapult." So, a name, and a functional description, and detailed plans. Truly mysterious.

[@anthonyleyva]

I thought that was pretty stupid, too, if not completely anticlimactic.

[@cameronardoin3347]

I was having trouble finding videos of this machine on KZbin and after trying a few generic names I searched "NASA yeet machine" and found all kinds of videos of the spin launch immediately

[@BoliceOccifer]

They just accidentally made the worlds best artillery piece

[@brianressler569]

It'll be crazy to seem them pull this one off, hope they can do it cause it would have massive implications for small sats without the need for massive quantities of propellant. Of Course who knows if it would work, there are tons of challenges to overcome, not to mention earth's gravity and the atmosphere

[@Piddlefoots]

kzbin.info/www/bejne/b6vMeHxmnp6JmKc

[@esthermerriken4408]

Not sats - *payloads*. Solid masses of stuff that are expensive to transport, like water and raw materials for space construction. Save the rockets for squishy stuff that doesn't like high g for long periods of time. Like humans!

[@brianressler569]

@@esthermerriken4408 thanks for the clarification makes sense, obviously I'm not some kind of rocket scientist

[@davefish2280]

@@esthermerriken4408 If you were just hauling construction materials like solid blocks of aluminium then you would not even need to worry about heat sheilding since the block of aluminium could reach 1000 degrees without being damaged. You could just have the whole nose cone as one block of aluminium. The material still being very hot from its trip through the atmoshpere might actually be helpful for a construction process which is already taking place.

[@g4all205]

If this works, it could be a good cost-saving measure for moving small amounts of cargo. If it doesn't, the technology and lessons learned could be used for other things in the future. Things don't always translate from paper to the real world so easily. So if the stuff fail (not saying it will) the data provided from the practical application could inform other engineers of potential issues with their designs so they can work on how solve them. Either way, it's nothing but a good thing someone is even trying this whether it works or not.

[@Blewlongmun]

It's not like we're sending massive payloads to space anyway, we already send things in pieces. 10 super cheap part launches and 1 expensive crew mission sounds revolutionary if it works out.

[@mikemurphy5898]

Use it for other things... like amusement park rides? 😀

[@SpeakerWiggin49]

@@mikemurphy5898 Heck yeah!

[@XiaolinDraconis]

@@mikemurphy5898 same day delivery? No, the same hour.

[@velizarnikolov4448]

Can someone explain to me ..... what should be the payload of that rocket , that can handle 10,000g ! I mean .... doesn't the things inside the rocket need to be exceptionally strong too ... just like the tether ? Because that means that the things inside it ,will be also 10,000 times heavier than their weight on the surface of the earth right? would that turn everything inside into a blended soup of things ? how does that works?🤯🤯🤯

[@thecasualfly]

This was very interesting and well put together, but one thing I will say that I feel like I have not done anything with my life.. seeing these younger generation doing mind-blowing projects.. it's amazing! KEEP IT UP!

[@SilentFlatulence]

Take it with a grain of salt. The young VP they introduced at the beginning looks very similar to the guy near the end. Might just be a family-related job reference.

[@edthoreum7625]

Yet , I am watching the science that galileo would love to have seen?

[@voornaam3191]

Wake up, maybe? You could do some thinking to stop the average leader being far too aggrressivve? Stop all those stupid wars, please.

[@Slayr.]

@@voornaam3191 And what have you done exactly? Don't tell people what to do, you have no authority over anyone.

[@Taylor4073]

This probably isn’t a viable project, so don’t beat yourself up.

[@tristanwegner]

the lower graph at 32:14 has to be wrong. In 10seconds it claims it reaches a height of 160km, which means an average speed of 16.000m/s. Which is about mach46, way higher than the plan to use.

[@mh6276]

Unless you are from a country that uses . in place of , you need to change 16.000m/s to this 16,000m/s

[@jaoschmidt3786]

It is wrong, the air density he is referring to is at 16km, not 160km. If it was that high, then gravity acceleration would also interfere

[@zyli-mo9113]

@@mh6276most of Europe would see 16,000 m/s as 16 m/s As comma is the separation here

I wonder how they calculate so precisely when exactly to release the payload. In such high RPMs, even a millisecond later can mean it will totally miss the exit chamber.

[@chaselewis5372]

I imagine there has to be an electrical trip wire of some form. Essentially whenever the rotator hits X point of rotation an electrical signal will trigger the release, you just activate that wire and then when the rotator gets to the correct position 'boom' it fires perfectly. That way the accuracy of the system literally comes down to just how accurate you can measure the rotation and you don't need any digital processing after that point. For stuff like that I always feel analog signal processing is just 100x more reliable. The more complicated way is to do it based off digital encoder reading and delays but that just seems like a lot more tuning and in general more prone to issues.

[@TT3Dxyz]

@@chaselewis5372 You are just making guesses as to how this system works and asserting it as if it has any merit. There could be multiple ways they monitor arm position to the accuracy needed, saying it could be an "analog" tripwire or a digital encoder is just fluff without substance.

[@cogoid]

Generating the electrical signal is easy. In an ordinary car engine the spark is timed to the rotation of the shaft to a few tens of microseconds or better, using very inexpensive commodity components. That is a solved problem. On the other hand, rapidly and controllably releasing any mechanism which is under 100000 tons of force is a completely new territory. One would have to work very hard to solve this engineering challenge. An additional challenge is to do this precisely without creating disturbing forces, so that the rocket flies in the desired direction and within specified angular rates.

[@HenryLoenwind]

@@cogoid Indeed. Timing stuff at 450 rpm is rather boring to anyone who's worked on timing a 20,000 rpm combustion engine. There are many potential issues with this system, but timing isn't one of them. I'd be far more concerned about what microseismic events would do to the system while it's spun up. But unlike most of the internet, I won't assume they employ apes hammering on keyboards but engineers who are smart enough to do their job.

[@honkhonk8009]

@@chaselewis5372 Bro you realize that having an analog trigger like that would be infinitely more harder than a fucking encoder lmfaoooo. Its the 21st century. The math and sensors already exist for the most insane accuracies needed. I think they got it under controll

[@michaelimbesi2314]

I’m surprised that they didn’t just call a shipyard for the vacuum chamber. The double bottom tanks on ships are built to withstand more than 1 atm of pressure because of hydrostatic loads, and shipyards will have the experience, equipment, and workforce to easily and cheaply produce something like that.

[@hardrays]

theyre all booked up for the next five years and it wouldn't come with a warranty of fitness for purpose.

[@docferringer]

@@hardrays First thing I thought of. Even the shipyards building Navy ships are backlogged just from supplying our peacetime needs. If the Russia or China situations flare up, we would be stuck cleaning the cobwebs and naval historians out of the bilges on our mothballed fleet elements.

[@whydontyouhandledeez]

@@docferringer "naval historians" lmao

[@MachinaExSanguinem]

Withstanding pressure and vacuum are two vastly different things... The project is nonsense as is.

[@LakinMoser]

​@@MachinaExSanguinem There are probably a lot of reasons why shipyards aren't the move here, but this isn't one of them. Vacuum and pressure are exactly the same thing... the force exerted on a vacuum chamber "by" the vacuum it holds is really just external pressure similar to that experienced by ships.

[@usonumabeach300]

I'd like to hear the sonic boom from the launch vehicle first hitting atmosphere after leaving the final door. Would this system not be more efficient launching from a higher altitude, and also warm and arid air?

[@forgetfuldullahan5468]

This will be most effective on places like the moon, where there is no air resistance!

[@remi_gio]

I was wondering about the boom myself... it's strange they didn't mention it at all. I like the whole endeavour a lot though!

[@nickauclair1477]

The entire area will get blasted with the most minuscule adjustments.

[@tristancoffin]

@@nickauclair1477 the adverbs and nouns are shaking

[@robertphillips9017]

Has anyone noticed that the projectile will be rotating about its center. It is rotating as it is attached and stays rotating after it leaves. This effect would explain the change in angle as it exits the membrane. The projectile continues this rotation as it rises. To eliminate this rotation they will need to counter-rotate the projectile on the centrifuge and somehow coordinate the launch with both position and orientation.

[@puffcrusader696]

Gotta be either some sort of double release mechanism that stabilizes that rotational inertia or maybe we’re overthinking it and the fins in the dense atmosphere is enough to straighten it out?

[@Player-pj9kt]

I think the fins should be good enough to stabilize it. It's might be an issue in the vacuum chamber but then again it's going really fast so it might not matter

[@davidbwa]

I am still a bit skeptical they will overcome some of the hurdles mentioned but I lack the knowledge in the associated fields to say they won't (or will). But I appreciate how you made this video. It seems fairly well balanced addressing the concerns and negatives as well as the positive and thus avoiding just being a 'hype' video. I also greatly appreciated the clear, smooth editing style instead of "flashy", jerky stuff trying too hard to look cool. In other words, thank you for not being the video equivalent of 'jazz hands'. I hate it when some channels do that.

[@Crowbars2]

5:37 - "SpinLaunch aims to yeet its aeroshell." I love how "yeet" is used as a technical term here, and I love the _whoosh_ sound as he says it. It's great that they're able to achieve a suborbital yeet, but I wonder if they could do a straight yeet to ballistic capture into lunar orbit from Earth. Makes me wonder if a trans-lunar yeeting is possible.

[@sigurdchrist]

If yeet is to be used as a technical term for launching stuff, I propose using ''yoink'' as a technical term for capturing stuff. My reasoning for this is that yoink is the opposite of yeet.

[@kerbodynamicx472]

A trans-lunar yeeting would require a initial velocity of about 12km/s. Assuming the maximum g force the satellite can take is 10000g, this translates to a rotation radius of some 1440 meters and 80 RPM… that’s a terrifying sight to behold

[@fdc184]

Do you know how far apart the Earth and Moon are? kzbin.info/www/bejne/sIOWepqZaLebnMk

[@bryanjy7923]

When I saw the concept way back months ago, I was very skeptical. I thought it is something that would only exist in dreams. Never really thought that engineers would consider building this

[@CrazyKZ_productions]

this is one hell of a trebuchet

[@BenjaminGoldberg1]

On the subject of regenerative braking, I could imagine having two spin launch devices close to one another, and slowing one down to speed up the other.

[@THESLlCK]

that is a hell of a lot of friction to overcome

[@BenjaminGoldberg1]

@@THESLlCK Not mechanically -- you'd end up throwing away at least 50% of the kinetic energy -- but electrically. The first spin launch, which just sent up a satellite, and is in need of slowing down, spins an electrical generator. The power from the generator is transmitted to a nearby second spin launch, whose electric motor consumes the electricity being produced by the generator. The short distance between the two spin launches means little energy is lost to electrical resistance, and, more importantly, reduces how much power is needed from the grid.

[@mrmagoo.3678]

Would it be any help to use the braking motion for electrical generation?.. that spin would have to provide a few sparks?..lol.. could at least microwave a couple of day old shrimp burritos without risking stomach cramps I recon....?

[@pfa231]

Regenerative braking will return peanuts, not worth it.

[@nathangarrett4771]

@@pfa231 At least 40% usually

[@russesse1]

How can the centrifuge release the payload in 1/3,600 of a second figuring 10 rotations per second and and a window of 1 degree angle at best ? It will be interesting to see how the release mechanism works.

[@youareliedtobythemedia]

I doubt it will work. And it's not the onl problem

[@kmcc1980]

This release mechanism is a huge challenge. And getting that wrong just once would be catastrophic.

[@gurmeens6469]

Thats interesting, even with the compensation from the thrusters for stabilization

[@petermeter]

but you can already see it working in the 1/3 scale Version. Of course you have bigger tolerances there but you can always improve these

[@hueanao]

@@youareliedtobythemedia your doubt alone is meaningless, provide actual questions, with hard data as to why you don't think it'll work, and then post your comment. You look like a child posting something like this tbh.

[@micahanderson8903]

Thanks a lot! When they get their patents for release mechanisms and doors, etc. Please make us a bit of a follow up on how they work.

[@Xalwreath]

It took an embarrassing amount of time for the concept of relativity in a supersonic object to click in, but once that happened this became one of the most exciting projects I've heard of in many years. Best of luck and we'll all benefit from your success. Thanks for making this video and forcing me to confront my sea-level atmosphere engineering biases.

[@JohnKickboxing]

2:12 This space launch gun project previously funded by Saddam Hussein is far more exciting, less expensive, simple and efficient. If improved further, it would have been capable of launching fragile cargo as good as the conventional space shuttle. SpinLaunch is not that good at all.

[@gabedarrett1301]

@@JohnKickboxing Please list a source saying it would be cheaper with conventional explosives

[@JohnKickboxing]

@@gabedarrett1301 We can make the initial explosion milder that helps it launch cargo gently with low G force then gradually get the explosion stronger. That helps reduce the cost for making cargo strong enough to withstand high G force.

[@JohnKickboxing]

@@gabedarrett1301 We can also pump the air out of its barrel and that helps reduce air drag as cargo launching. That would save the cost for launching.

[@Studio23Media]

@@JohnKickboxingThat's nonsense. Go take a physics class

[@bjorn_moren]

I hope they will succeed, but I am highly skeptical. Two things really stand out: A) Opening a 2x2 m (?) vacuum launch door for just a fraction of a second (10 ms?) to let the rocket out. I doubt anything like that can be constructed. B) Payload is seriously limited to only stuff that can withstand 10,000 G of force.

[@monkemode8128]

I think that stuff like water and food are good options for this. In the future if we're building stuff lots of stuff in space then raw materials can be sent up. About the door, I'm not familiar with the math but I kinda think some kind of sliding door might be useful... Like I said, I'm not really familiar with the math, but a door that just slides at a set speed with a hole in it that lines up really well seems like it could work to me because they could speed it up and slow it down a little slower and it might be able to withstand a big shock wave hitting it better.

[@philipcooksey3422]

Engineering a door like that isn't as difficult as you would think, for an engineer. And like the video said, designing the payloads is actually easier than most people think.

[@bjorn_moren]

@@philipcooksey3422 Well, I am a mechanical engineer, and I doubt I could figure out how to open a door that is pushed shut with 40 tons of force (the atmospheric pressure) in just 10 ms, and then close it equally fast. And as soon as that door is opened, air will rush in at 340 meters per second creating an immense pressure wave which disturbs everything inside, including the rocket.

[@philipcooksey3422]

@@bjorn_moren you just need bigger and stronger things than what's off the shelf. No one said this is cheap to design. I am am engineer as well, so I'm not just spouting or nonsense.

[@oldcowbb]

@@philipcooksey3422 you don't sound like an engineer with the vague language you use

[@riccardoriganti838]

You should make the same kind of documentaries with nuclear startups like nuscale and others!

[@RealEngineering]

We are filming with Helion next month!

[@Feefa99]

@@RealEngineering YES!

[@pseudotasuki]

@@RealEngineering !!! Fantastic!

[@mandusgrenningloh2542]

You kidding me @Real Engineering, is litteraly just wanted to ask about helion energy. Greetings from Germany

[@pixselious]

@@RealEngineering Read that as Helios, had a mini heart attack.

[@Sanobot]

The graphs at 32:12 are wrong as the time shown must be in minutes rather than seconds as stated in the bottom. As explained a minute earlier in the video, at around 31:17 the initial speed is around 2 km /s. Thus, while super fast, it still would take a full minute to achieve 120km altitude if there was no slowdown due to drag. So the general message is correct, just the stated times are wrong by a factor of 60.

[@RBZ06LT6]

Thats not how physics work but i get your point

[@NEDMKitten]

What's the second derivative?

[@Endeva09]

The graph at 32:12 is suggesting they can reach 80km in altitude in 1 second. Which is clearly wrong. If the launch velocity is 2km/s, even with absolutely no drag whatsoever the output is exactly that - 2km, if the x axis should of been in minutes, then the altitude achieved in 1 minute with drag is probably around 80km.

[@jduf42]

I agree that a scale of minutes seems correct. Additionally, the 1/3 scale appears to be launching the projectile in a purely vertical direction while the rendering of the full scale structure and the flight path charts suggest that the launch trajectory will be at an angle from vertical. this means the projectile will experience aerodynamic forces for longer periods of time and gain altitude more slowly as it takes a longer path through the atmosphere. This all assuming my understanding of the situation is correct.

[@dougwilson6599]

I think they’re keeping the real numbers secret. I would

[@ghrrum]

This was beautifully done, good job and thanks!

[@AchuthanKarnnan]

As an engineer myself, This idea was something I used to joke about with my friends back in my college days. Seemed too cartoonsih and the rough calculations we made suggested an idea too impractical to consider seriously. To see such ideas being persued is refreshing.... More power to them 🖖🔥

[@BoGy1980]

as an engineer... what happens when the 'device' BREAKS the seal and the vacuum chamber fills in 0.01 second??? what happens when you throw something at mach 5 at sea level? use your engineering skills to decide if this is a moneygrab or reality... i wanna bet u that once they get funded with loads of money, it'll get VERY silent, even their 'breaking the seal' is a FAKE animation, check it frame by frame you'll see something's not adding up... or check thunderf00t's scientific debunking of this device..

[@AchuthanKarnnan]

@@BoGy1980 I did say that "the idea is too impractical"... But the fact that they are investing so much on something that might be a complete waste of time is something refreshing. Who knows... Maybe,my calculations were wrong and it will work... Let them try ⭐

[@boxhead6177]

Probably someone also thought it was too cartoonish to sit on the end of a rocket and light it... but then much later we use the term "rocket scientist" to state someone a genius.

[@Rig0r_M0rtis]

As a mechanical engineer myself I know when things are too good to be true it is usually an error in calculation.

[@--_DJ_--]

@@boxhead6177 You are exactly the kind of person they are looking for, no critical thinking, just hopes and dreams. (and a fat wallet you are willing to open)

[@Secretsofsociety]

I like how Yeet is now a engineering term

[@opinion245]

The resistance to G forces within the payload was my main concern from the beginning. Im glad that the issue was tackled in the last chapter of the video, but to be honest im not fully satisfied. Having the electronics already strong enough is half the battle. having a structure that supports itself + the electronics is a different game imo to the soda can example which only needed to support itself and is designed to be as strong as possible and not to have PCB and solar mounted to it. Where you are testing the camera as an example for the sturdiness of components i spotted a fairly hefty machined bracket.

[@pro272727]

I like how they changed the soda can into something that can't hold soda.

[@SlayerBG93]

I would like to see what monster of a fuel tank they are using that can handle the fluid inside it pushing at 10 000g. Like the rocket is 1m wide. If the fluid inside is about the density of water it would create a pressure of about 1000 bar. We are talking some seriously hefty boy fuel tanks here. If they were launching at 7km/s and basicly needed the rocket for manuevering I could imagine it working but they need to add about 6km/s of delta v and their rocket will be vastly less efficient than most.

[@garethpatterson1504]

and really, what USEFUL payload could handle 10,000g. Foods? Fuel? Machines? I agree that the engineering could fix the launch components, but really... what could we send?

[@forgetfuldullahan5468]

@@garethpatterson1504 food, water, and raw materials. All very important stuff that will certainly be needed in space travel, and it would be better to send up the heavy stuff in a way that you don't need to add more fule to compensate for more weight.

[@PaulSpades]

@@forgetfuldullahan5468 agreed. there's lots of high density stuff we would need in space, and this is a great way to send it.

[@somehybrid]

"Gaining 72 kilometers of altitude off nothing but pure kinetic energy" yes, i think thats how kinetic energy works

[@Player-pj9kt]

But it doesn't take away the fact that it's an impressive feat. Throwing something to space

[@PlayerJ1]

5:37 Spinlaunch aims to *YEET* its aeroshell

[@NICOLAI_VET]

I'd like to hear the noise that it will be making when a hypersonic object leaves a a vacuum and transitions into 1000mb pressure.

[@haphazard1342]

Not if you want to keep your ear drums intact.

[@torfley]

It wouldn't rip your ear drums, it will evaporate them

[@kayjay7585]

Boom. It will sound an explosion.

[@ralfanari8854]

You mean 1 000 000 000 nano bars

[@neiloflongbeck5705]

That'll be the projectile going bang, just like a high velocity bullet, say from an M1 Garand, being fired into water.

[@JohnLobbanCreative]

Wondering how the fuels needed to move a satellite into an exact orbit will react to the pressures of spin-up and how durable will the rocket motor components have to be to survive these centrifugal forces that are far beyond those present in a traditional launch.

[@ernestuz]

The only part of the rocket engine that might pose a problem is the pump (half of rocket science is about pumping the fuel in the **first stage**), but given it goes directly to a second stage you have simpler options like using a pressurizing fluid and pushing the fuel out. In fact they might be able to use a monopropellant, so they don't have to carry any oxygen, that might explain why their rocket is so compact.

[@asdfasdf-dd9lk]

Yeah I have trouble seeing the market for this when it comes to payload, who's going to specifically make payloads to withstand 100G's just to drop the first stage of a launch system, that has to use a shoddy second+ stage due to aforementioned G load.

[@honkhonk8009]

@@ernestuz Thats even assuming their gonna need a pump lol. Modern SRBs can litterally be shut off and controlled like a liquid fuel rocket engine. idk much about rockets but SRBs prolly can survive more G's since it looks so simple.

[@ryanj610]

Agreed; I'm not an engineer, or even someone who's taken advanced physics... but the fuel tank is going to have to be beefy to support a couple hundred kg's of fuel at 10,000g (on one side of the projectile, at that); then there's the consideration of fuel having an ignition pressure, especially a monopropellant. I'm sure they've thought of these things, of course, but to a layman, some of the more complicated problems seem insurmountable.

[@alansnyder8448]

Seems like a good fit for getting small payloads off of the moon.

[@mxm23adregalusandmore62]

You might be correct. This "launcher" performs best in the absence of an Atmosphere... Case in point, the moon. It still has some problems when compared to traditional systems (rotational stresses, massive error margin, very limited payload) But who knows, maybe it could get some use in the future once the concept is better understood.

[@PJTierney]

I don’t know if this was something that they weren’t willing to answer or not (or if I missed it in the video), but how do they time the release? I can imagine at those speeds releasing even a thousandth of a second too early/late will just yeet the payload into the wall instead of outer space.

[@extraordinarilybasic3250]

Better engineers like Tom Dodd have already shown how far this company has to go, and there's a reason their "test" shows very little, and jsut looks like it's trying to be a SpaceX slap hands video. Unless our understanding of physics takes a giant leap, this is nothing more than another investor money pit.

[@PJTierney]

@@stefanvanzyl9090 Thanks for the explanation, and the F1 comparison. I'm much more familiar with F1 than traditional engineering so that worked for me 🙂 Side-note, while an F1 car can in theory rev up to 15krpm as per the current technical regulations, most teams have optimised their cars in such a way that they almost never go above 12k.

[@PJTierney]

I wasn’t discounting your example, just correcting it from an F1 perspective 🙂 Either way, you’ve explained that timing the release mechanism isn’t particularly difficult with current technology, so that answers my initial question 👍🏻

[@jeremyseelingerdevey3538]

I love this channel. The topics range from the forward-looking (e.g. this video) to the topical (technologies to decarbonize and counter climate change) to the plane fun ("the A10 Warthog is amazing!!!"). The approach is practical and problem-oriented, never skimping on underlying principles, but always remaining accessible to dilitantes like myself. I'm so happy for the channel's success and wish the team all the best going forward. This first doc is fantastic. Keep up the good work!

[@simeonkarnes9910]

This is my favorite kind of engineering. I feel like this was one of those ideas where a group of engineers were drinking and someone said "how crazy would it be if we could..." and then they did some intoxicted calculations on a stack of napkins only to realize that it might actually work. People like this are exactly why I got my degree in engineering and get excited over little seemingly ridiculous ideas to just play with and see where it goes.

[@johnforrestboone1]

Get your degree... come back... then let me know how dumb this idea is

[@simeonkarnes9910]

@@johnforrestboone1 I already have my mechanical with electives focusing in controls, aerospace, and robotics. Working on degree two Master's in EE focus in RF.

[@polygontower]

@@johnforrestboone1 Engineer vs Engineer One will forever be ashamed and get their degree sent into a rocket

[@mcgavin098]

It probably started when they remembered that there's still a manhole cover spinning out of control in our solar system after an underground nuclear test blew it into space.

[@wendelinspegel2842]

Super intresting, can't stop thinking of the consequences of a missifre/doors not opening quickly enough/malfunction.

[@SP4CEBAR]

To get perfect vacuum you'd need the DVD logo molecules to bounce perfectly into the edge of the tank

[@am-e7967]

This concept is by design only able to carry very limited payloads, and puts extreme forces on the rocket components that are launched. The numbers they give are also entirely speculative, as they have only had one actual flight test at a relatively low altitude. Yes, I have watched the video, and it was well produced, but there was very little skepticism presented towards the claims they made.

[@doctorpurple5173]

Why does there need to be skepticism??? It's not a religious fanatic asking you to vote them into power and have faith in them, it's a company doing an experiment. LITERALLY JUST WAIT AND SEE IF IT WORKS. it's not that hard

[@am-e7967]

@@doctorpurple5173 They have wasted a lot of taxpayer and investor money that could have been spent on something better. And we don't need to wait and see if it works, because there are inherent flaws that cannot be fixed and make it completely unviable

[@millenniumf1138]

That's because there is way too much call for them to give up and pack it all in due to "wasting" money on this. The prototype system did what it was supposed to, and the full scale system probably will too given what they have already demonstrated, but we'll never know till they actually finish it. It needs to be built, because you can learn a LOT more from failure than you can from giving up, and even if a system like this will never work there will be enough incidental discoveries and patents made from its technology that it'll still be worth the cost in the long run, especially since a project like this is relatively cheap compared to something like the Hyperloop.

[@quistador7]

@@millenniumf1138 LOL you cannot be serious. The prototype had the projectile tumbling like a bullet without rifling. WHICH IS EXACTLY what any engineer worth their salt would've predicted. He literally says in the video they "yeet" it. which is exactly why it tumbles. When I saw that they wouldn't be spinning the projectile like a bullet or missile before release, I knew exactly what was going to happen, and it did exactly that, tumble. How these engineers didn't see this coming baffles me

[@M4niacks2]

@@quistador7 If the tumbling cause that great of a problem they can just redesign the shell to start spinning when it leaves the vacuum. Everything we saw was a prototype, the projectile doesn't necessarily need to be stable to demonstrate what the prototype was intended to prove. The main skepticism is about how much will it cost to launch with that system, how much fuel you can save, but what other cost will show up. Will the reusable parts wear down faster than expected, will the constraints in what can go in such rocket be too narrow to get a large enough market, that kind of things.

[@CAGonRiv]

NASA contractor here. I work very closely with the Spaceport America partners (Virgin, Spinlaunch, Fiore) I can tell you it's AMAZING work the guys and gals are doing here. I've been to several launches for these companies. If you find yourself here in West Tx, Southern NM, please don't hesitate to comment. We would love to have you take a public tour

[@brandonshaw2247]

im in west texas and i am going into aerospace engineering at CU Boulder. I would love to have a tour!

[@billpugh58]

Always selling stuff huh?

[@CAGonRiv]

@@billpugh58 what are you on about mate?

[@canislupis3129]

Mr. CAGonRiv: I would love to take a tour. I’ve paid for the enhanced tours at NASA many times. I asked a lot of questions through the tour, but they seemed happy to answer them. I live near Houston, so travel to West Texas wouldn’t be bad.

[@CAGonRiv]

@@canislupis3129 come through.

[@XPLAlN]

According to this year old video “Spinlaunch have only just begun with the 1/3rd scale tests”. Why then, did these tests stop abruptly a year ago? It is safe to assume the project hit the rocks big style.

[@tehspamgozehere]

Surprisingly difficult to get any information to either support or refute this claim. There's a TON of publicity style material out there. The official website plays more like an animated powerpoint style presentation rather than an actual information source. Even the Wikipedia page just has brief notes on awards given and plans. It's difficult to find anything that even says they're still in business, let alone whether they're conducting launches, test launches, tests or anything else. And of course the idiotic questions like "Can a human survive Spinlaunch?" don't help matters.

[@teapot2_1]

Anyone with a fucntioning brain can see this is DOA and another rugpull to gullible investors.

[@ericchin739]

Because this was NEVER feasible. That's why it's all young engineers using investor money. Real engineers know this is absolutely ridiculous..... else, why isn't NASA trying this to save money on their launches?! Wouldn't NASA want to be able to achieve higher payloads?!

[@danielch6662]

Yesterday, they announced the founder and CEO quit and left. He's being replaced by the COO. The lack of news is not a good sign. The website looks like a placeholder not updated since 2022.

[@teapot2_1]

@@danielch6662 how could anyone have seen this coming!

[@kevinhart7380]

I did not expect to want to watch a 40min video on this but wow you did a great job producing it.

[@arbitraryidentifier8760]

This is awesome, not only the amazing engineering of the Spinlaunch team, but the new course with a brilliant and how far this channel has come. This is one of my favourite channels, I have learnt so much, and it's really helped develop my ability to look at problems from new angles. I really am excited that you have managed to create a documentary length video, and I cannot wait to see what awesome engineering videos you do next.

[@philiphart6688]

Just a shame that this has been completely busted - which rather diminishes the credibility of the channel.

[@polygontower]

@@philiphart6688 You've been paid by goons You'll never get the money back. It is all a crypto scam A ponzi scheme

[@philiphart6688]

@@polygontower Huh?

[@polygontower]

@@philiphart6688 You don't know what a ponzi scheme is? Then how did you find it?

[@philiphart6688]

@@polygontower What's that got do with the price of fish?

[@snigdharahman1480]

I've heard of spin launch 2years ago in a related topic of debris field orbitting us and future disruptions. This was heavily informative with the updates. Thank you

[@bagel_deficient]

To be honest, I never thought they would get this far. I'm extremely pleased to see that I was wrong. I love the concept.

[@threebuttonsmash]

The engineering marvels that are created to reduce waste, increase efficiency, and improve technique are amazing. Between launching rockets on minimal fuel, reusing rockets or casings, and creating inflatable habitats in space is beyond words. I’m so thankful to every group and person that funds these innovators!

[@anoniemw.222]

Imagine building such a system on the moon for transporting mined materials back to earth (-orbit) or lunar orbit. You wont even need an aerodynamic vehicle. Just a small capsule and a heat shield (If you wand to use the material on earth)

[@steviegbcool]

yeah but you would only need a tiny rocket too

[@danceswithdirt7197]

That'd be dope but I'd be worried about it breaking on the moon and us not being able to repair it. There are a lot of open moving bits too which is a recipe for disaster on the moon because of all the regolith (it's coarse, it's rough, it's irritating, and it gets everywhere). If the people smarter than me can figure out a way to isolate it from the regolith or make it a non-issue it'd be cool, otherwise I think the best mechanism for transporting material back to Earth might be the least complex mechanism. It's fun to think about.

[@kosmologue]

@@danceswithdirt7197 The lack of atmosphere blowing the regolith around would probably minimize any serious problems. This would be more of an issue somewhere like Mars I believe. From what I understand it is still possible to see the tracks and footprints of the Apollo missions on the Moon to this day as result of the very low levels of disturbance experienced by regolith. The other benefits of using something like this on the Moon are that you don't need a vacuum, since the Moon is already a vacuum at surface level, and the much lower levels of gravity also greatly reduce the amount of force needed to escape the Moon's gravity well, after which the payload can fall back to Earth with very little energy. The main issue would be, from what I understand at least, that you would need to pack some fuel and an engine to slow down enough to fall out of orbit and back to Earth, as your velocity after escaping the moon's gravity well would put you into an orbit with a periapsis roughly around lunar orbit and an apoapsis a tad bit higher. It wouldn't take much, however, but if you're already putting fuel and an engine on your payload in my mind it makes more sense to just add the small amount of more fuel you would need to escape the Moon's gravity and just do without the whole affair altogether. Most of the benefits you would see from building something like SpinLaunch on the Moon apply just as well to conventional rockets, which are much more efficient in a vacuum environment already, so you have to question whether or not the economics would work out. Obviously, constructing something like this on the Moon presents its own staggering engineering challenge and, I suspect, would be orders of magnitude more expensive to construct, even considering the reduced load bearing requirements of the tether material and the lack of requirement for a vacuum pump system. In the far future, when there is already some build up of industry in space, I could see it being worth it, but not any time soon, maybe in our grandchildren's time or later.

[@Xeridanus]

@@kosmologue Not sure what you're talking about with the orbit stuff. Give it the right launch velocity and you could put it in any orbit you want around Earth with nothing more than manoeuvring thrusters. Or have it splash down somewhere. One thing I thought of is that being tidally locked means you wouldn't have to adjust your aim or wait for the right time of moon, just launch whenever is good for Earth.

[@TheEulerID]

Read the novel by Robert Heinleim where a Lunar government basically repeats the American War of Independence/Revolution and uses a linear accelerator to lob rocks at the Earth. Basically something close to a small nuclear bomb, but without the radiation. It also has a computer which becomes self aware and helps out before going into a funk and not responding any more.

[@lithiumdeuteride]

Here are my calculations, matching the video's inputs where possible, and guesses elsewhere. SI units used throughout. INPUTS: tether radius = 45 m projectile velocity = 2058 m/s projectile mass = 9072 kg allowable angular error of release = 1.0 deg frangible link tensile strength = 3.5 GPa (high-strength unidirectional carbon fiber) structural safety factor = 1.5 air density = 1.225 kg/m^3 projectile radius = 0.5 m drag coefficient = 0.1 OUTPUTS: spin frequency = 7.279 Hz allowable timing error of release = 382 us = 0.382 ms = 0.000382 s centripetal acceleration = 94120 m/s^2 = 9594 g dynamic pressure = 2.594 MPa drag force = 203.7 kN drag deceleration = 22.46 m/s^2 = 2.29 g tether tension = 853.8 MN tether section area = 0.366 m^2 tether section equivalent diameter = 68.2 cm (diameter of the severed link) From a physics perspective, everything checks out. From an engineering perspective, there are major challenges. The device must sever two very large and strong connections with a timing accuracy of less than half a millisecond. I would like to believe that a traditional hinged mechanism could accomplish this, but I don't think it's possible. I know of only one way to do it reliably - a sharp blade driven by explosives. But if one explosive fails to activate, the device rips itself apart due to the large mass eccentricity. If the timing is off, the projectile and/or counterweight collide with the pressure vessel. Furthermore, the frangible links must be distinct from the tether arm, or the entire arm would need to be replaced after each firing. This necessitates a removable joint capable of carrying the same 853 MN load. Unidirectional carbon fiber does not like joints. I expect the cross-sectional area at the joint would need to be at least doubled to maintain the same strength. The severed links must also be replaced in-between firings.

[@azzzertyy]

someone who actually put the time and effort into actually calculating it himself. i applaud you man, i agree with all of your conclusions, it will 100% be hard, and i dont know if its completely feasibly, but from a purely calculations point of view it is absolutely possible, its just whether or not the project can withstand integration hell with all of these systems that need to be developed and work in tandem to be able to do all of this. i'd like to believe it can be accomplished, since, this would be such a monumentally better way of launching sattelites, but there is reason to be skeptical (not in the same way as some armchair engineer with a chemistry degree)

[@cogoid]

Also, the tether will be stretched close to its structural limit, and then this load will *very* suddenly disappear. This will have to be carefully managed somehow -- by adding even more mass to the tether, for example. Otherwise, the sudden unloading will launch a compression wave through the tether, and since the compressive strength of the composite is not as good as its tensile strength, this is very much not desirable. Similarly, suddenly unloading the structure of the rocket from 10000 g's to 0 g's at the moment of release would require much more careful design than just for withstanding 10000 g's statically. The moment of release is just as hard on all components as is shooting of a shell from a cannon. I am sure SpinLaunch is well aware of all this, and are designing their system accordingly. It is a very interesting set of challenges all around -- and might be a cool project to work on,as long as somebody is willing to pay for it. I think it can be made to work, and some features even fit together very nicely. But I still find it very doubtful that such system can be cheaper than the more traditional rockets like those made by SpaceX and RocketLab.

[@joshuaespinoza8325]

what about magnets? have a magnet running on each end to keep the payload and counterweight/secondary payload connected to the tether. then when its time to release, just cut the power.

[@Petch85]

Nice calculations. I have 1.5 note. (just for the fun of it) Well the 854MN is only at the tip of the tether. The mass of the tether also needs to be carried. I guess r gets smaller as the tether gets larger, thus that helps a bit. The strain energy at release is also quite high. 0.5 * V/E*S^2. Estimate/ lover bound ~= 0.5*(0.366 m^2 * 45 m)/200 GPa*(3.5/1.5 GPa)^2 = 224 MJ. I am assuming E to be 200 GPa. I think that is a good fiber quality with a minimum of excess resin in a unidirectional layup. If the can achieve a higher stiffness than that they might be able to reduce this, but if the only achieve 70-100 GPa the energy will be more than double. I have no idea how the absorb this energy. If they add more resin they can increase the damping in the carbon fiber, but they also reducere the stiffness, thus adding more energy. This I think is a unique problem for them, I do not know of a place where you need to take this into account. I would like to see a video of the tether when the projectile is released. It is similar to when a wire snaps in half, and that can do some damage. (The bending strength is not at all the same though) Also the fatigue problem of a layup this thick is hard, just small errors will grow to big problems in a layup like this. Maybe the keep track of the displacement under load, and then just replace it if anything abnormal is seen. On the other hand. They will not see that many load cycles if 10 af day is the goal. I do not know for carbon fiber, but normally you would look at fatigue after 10000 cycles, and that would be about 3-5 years in this case. Well I guess I could learn something by working there a year or 2. But what are the odds 😛

[@Folsomdsf2]

the load isn't unidirectional either on release, the bearings are gonna go boom.

[@PtVienna316]

Aahh. Yes. The ultra-rare "Science Yeet"! Love it!

[@scudinthemud]

It's good that they got the cost of the vacuum shell so low, they're going to get through quite a few of those.

[@junfour]

"This channel is about being positive about engineering." I thought this channel was about being real about engineering.

[@GorosVoices]

And here I thought that engineering was about making stuff that doesn't exist, be real. I think we need to be positive and try, work hard to find solutions where there appear to be none.... Obviously while still abiding the laws of physics, not making up unicorns.

[@wjpperry1]

Thank you, I was really starting to think nobody knew anything about math or physics.

[@IIoWoII]

The door closing mechanism works with explosives. I'm 99% sure. It's the simplest way to get the kind of force you need for it and work repeatably without insane engineering&costs.

[@Aereto]

Explosives introduce gas when they detonate or violently decompose, since nitrogen is just one of many gaseous byproducts.

[@IIoWoII]

@@Aereto The explosive puts a force on a hammer which strikes the door. The hammer is sealed.

[@mybuddyphil8719]

I'm more impressed with how they get the door to latch closed with a seal than I am with how they get it moving.

[@monkey-ej3tq]

@@mybuddyphil8719 I would assume the pressure of the vacuum and exterior air pushing on the door would help keep the door closed

[@mybuddyphil8719]

@@monkey-ej3tq to some degree, but that would only happen after the pressure has built up. The initial net pressure should be more or less 0 for the first door when it closes, no? The video had it closing before the outer door opened.

[@exarch404]

It's funny how the carbon fiber spin-arm introduces its own kind of "rocket equasion" with regards to the size it needs to be to support both the projectile as well as its own weight.

[@sentienthamster]

This is soooo much more interesting than lighting tons of what is essentially kerosene and hoping it doesn't blow up in your face. Cool thing about the double doors is if they are evacuating the tube, the first set are able to start swinging in near vacuum with little resistance and using the incoming rush of atmosphere to help slam them shut. Nothing an appropriate amount of steel can't overcome.

[@Grigorii-j7z]

We burn it because this is the most efficient and the cheapest way. Kerosene is one of the most energy dence, cheap, efficient, easy to store and transport, safe to work fuel we have. Their "math" (more like baseless aspirations) doesn't add up.

[@xy4489]

@@Grigorii-j7z Your claim is less based than theirs, tbh.

[@maddthomas]

I have loved your channel for a while, I love learning about engineering or anything going into esoteric detail, but the fact you used the word "Yeet" only made me love it more.

[@mtelab4941]

That’s two doors closing together I think, one is the immediate seal and the other takes the brunt of the force in order to push the sealing door shut as fast as possible without breaking it (sealing door is more fragile than the helper door)

[@Emersonkabati]

I’ve seen a spin launch video before so I almost skipped this one and I am so glad I didn’t. Great video

[@dyronsimene]

As much as I don't like to subscribe because I'm not an engineer or anything but your videos are just so fascinating and interesting that makes me want to watch every single damn time. Thank you for your awesomeness. Subscribed!

[@matthewhenry6797]

The only thing that I think will be the hardest part to overcome will be once the projectile is released then the balance will be off and at that speed spinning it will be hard to keep it from ripping itself apart. Also the multiple launchs without losing vacuum sounds good and yes the doors will prevent them from losing it all but how do they mount the next projectile onto the launcher without opening the system.

[@matthewhenry6797]

@@mrstring4592 yep that was my bad for commenting while watching the video instead of waiting until the end lol.

[@asdasdasdasd8970]

A rotor spitting at mach 6 would need only 1 failure for the entire facility to be smashed to bits

[@m.h.6470]

not to mention the fact, that if the release of the clamps, that hold the rocket so tight, that the grip withstands multiple "g", is even a microsecond (or probably even nanosecond) off, you'll launch the rocket not straight up, but on an erratic trajectory, which would make the rocket completely useless.

[@tomcho8221]

@@m.h.6470 A nanosecond is a very short time, in their final plans from my understand they only plan to go around 450 RPM, rounding that up to 500 means each rotation will take 0.002 seconds, a short time for sure but that's 2000000 nanoseconds being off by a nanosecond would mean being off by 5e-7 of a rotation. Microseconds would be closer to the scale we would be working at with each rotation being around 2000 microseconds. Using the method of Elon Sampling I would estimate might have a buffer of maybe up to 5-10 microseconds that could be recovered from.

[@m.h.6470]

@@tomcho8221 sure, not impossible, but incredibly difficult - especially taking the extreme forces into account. Doesn't address the issue of torque after release though.

[@watema3381]

@@m.h.6470 Conservation of Energy is a bitch. Once a spinning 10 ton projectile is released, it'll completely destabilize the spinning mechanism. This whole Spinlaunch sham isn't going anywhere.

[@bebop5157]

@@watema3381 This specific challenge is addressed in the video, at length, including the solution they are currently using in 1/3rd scale testing and other potential options for use when the system is scaled up. I understand skepticism for new technologies, but to expect that these engineers did not also consider the first obvious potential issue you thought of is simply not reasonable, especially when scale systems are already being successfully tested. There are a lot of challenges here, no one disagrees, but at least try to discuss in good faith. PS: see the pinned comment.

[@noahwelke5231]

Is it just me, or does it seem impossible to both have a dual launch system AND close the doors to retain vacuum after each launch

[@luther0013]

Not only that but the footage of the test launches show that the test rocket starts tumbling about wildly after exiting the spin launcher.

[@snower13]

@@luther0013 Their later launches looked ok to me. Designing the release mechanism that avoids imparting a moment is an engineering challenge. The cool thing with their concept is that they can test different release mechanisms rapidly and relatively cheaply. The aero design of the shell can also be iterated on as needed.

[@AngDavies]

Not if the launch tube is longer than half the circumference of the launcher, then the second projectile can enter before the first leaves

[@stefansynths]

At 72000 RPM, the second projectile would follow the first by half a millisecond. Maybe that's fast enough to just close the door after the second one leaves.

[@1peanut]

Any real payload in that rocket will have to survive unsurvivable G forces ? FAIL !