SpinLaunch Suborbital Accelerator - First Launch

Watch team SpinLaunch conduct the first test launch with the newly completed Suborbital Accelerator.
Spinlaunch is an innovative new space technology company that has created an alternative method for putting 200 kilogram class satellites into low earth orbit. Unlike traditional fuel-based rockets, SpinLaunch uses a ground-based, electric powered kinetic launch system that delivers a substantially less expensive and environmentally sustainable approach to space access.
Learn more about our technology: www.spinlaunch.com
Help us build the future of space launch: / spinlaunch
Instagram: / spinlaunch_inc
Twitter: / spinlaunch
SpinLaunch Visualization: • SpinLaunch

[@fuyaho1164]

As a semi-professional investor and professional engineer, I always get skeptical when more than 90% of the video footage is some posed footage and self-congratulation and only 10% real content.

[@ByronAgain]

I was watching and trying to noodle the forces at play on the payload and what potential damage the stresses on the materials might inflict. The "spin it in circles for a few hours then hurl it upward" method might impose quite a few design limitations on the systems being "launched" - or, I could be wrong.

[@bside8568]

@@ByronAgain unless you plan to have a vacuum in the spin chamber the acceleration will be limited and a hard stress on the actual mechanics or hydraulics. but I'd love to see it being built and shred to pieces. it's like explosions to take down an old building . so satisfying .

[@ByronAgain]

@@bside8568 They did mention that they're putting the spin chamber under a vacuum, although how much of a vacuum they can achieve is another question. The payload would have to be hardened in either scenario which would limit the design of the potential instruments being hurled around. I agree, it'll be interesting to see what happens when (if) their systems are tested to the theoretical limits - 'nothing good' I think is the term for the outcome.

[@andypayne2743]

Why can we hear the arm spinning? Isn’t this supposed to be in a vacuum? Why are the screens in the control room blurred? There can’t be anything that’s proprietary there. The skeptic in me says it’s to hide the test data

[@ethanthompson4198]

@@ByronAgain with satellites being as fragile as they are, this method of launch would definitely rip them to shreds the forces in the spin chamber are one factor to this but the G’s experienced to make it to a sub orbital height using this method would be far too high I’m no expert by any means but that’s my thought on this.

[@horacethemoocow2320]

0.1 seconds of actual rocket footage but 1 minute 24 seconds of high fives.

[@mridlon1634]

Sounds like an average day in North Korea than me…

[@johngartman3845]

0.1 seconds is how long it takes the rocket to disappear from sight, out of range. You expecting an atmospheric cameraman? Or one holding a camera, trailing the rocket at speed ... on a tether perhaps? Hmmm, even NASA had to invent much of computer graphics (animations, courtesy of Jet Propulsion Lab's Jim Blinn) to persuade the public of the utility of what it was doing. They knew they would not have actual footage because it was impossible to take real pictures of the satellites. Thus the as real "as we can make it look" animations of satellites flying in space - nothing "real" about that either. Even lots of NASA footage today is animation, not real.

[@Wingnut353]

@@johngartman3845 Heh... they launched a camera recently... recording from the projectile.

[@canutolokismo9306]

its like when i grill my bbq

[@DiamondRB]

Ofc. It only takes mere seconds to launch and watch it launch. But all that behind the scenes work is all done by them, all those calculations, engineering and months figuring out the right methods to use to ultimately come out with an amazing product deserves celebration.

[@JxH]

A toddler tossing their teddy bear just above their head meets the definition of a "Suborbital Accelerator".

[@Paul-ou1rx]

We just needed a 600 ft toddler.

[@OtoGodfrey]

The moment I saw picture of it, wrote it off because of the centrifugal force, all other things aside. A 500kg satellite would weight 10,188 tons @ 853rpm. Force = m v^2 / r ... satellite mass: 500kg ... radius: 25m ... tangential velocity: 2235.2 m/s ... angular velocity = 853.8rpm ... force 99,922,381 newtons ... centrifugal acceleration: 199,845m/s^2 ... earth gravity is 9.807 m/s^2. So we got 20377x the gravity of earth exerted on the satellite. Meaning a 500kg satellite would weight 10,188 tons at the end of the arm/claw that will holding the satellite before release. How did these guys manage to build this thing, this far, without looking at the basics of math? How did every single one of them miss this? The fabric that separates the vacuum from atmosphere (and rocket punches through) is pretty sci-fi too.. where sea floor atmo pressure is 10.3 tons/square meter and we got an circular opening of ~2.4 diameter that the fabric covers. So we got 4.52m^2 x 10.3 tons = That is some cool fabric that can handle 46 tones of pressure but the rocket still can punch through! Just sell the fabric, get super rich! If you indeed have such magic fabric, then much better idea would be to have a almost vertical ~2.5km long rail-gun powered vacuum / tube, where you accelerate the satellite/rocket at 10g (98m/sec^2) for ~23 seconds to get up to 2235m/sec desired speed and then hope that you get to Kármán line @ 100km altitude in sub 1 minute, before the heat shields burn from atmospheric resistance... even this is idea is with faulty physics, but at least the payloads could handle 10g, but definitely not 20377g.

[@nic12344]

I don't think it's a very realistic project either, but you are wrong on pretty much everything here... 1. Their goal is to launch payloads up to 200kg, not 500kg. Also, the radius of the final spinner is projected to be 50m, not 25m. This means that the force exerted on the payload would be about 10,000 Gs. If this can seem extreme at face value, their team (and other independent research teams) have tested many satellite and rocket components (and even customer-grade smartphones and cameras) and demonstrated that they can survive at 10,000 Gs. 2. You realize that most materials have different strength in compression and tension, right? Also, comparing a localized stress applied by a pointy object with a mass of 11,200Kg (full projectile) going at Mach 6 with a distributed force of 1 atm is kind of stupid (not saying you are stupid, just your point)... I mean let's say the tip of the projectile is 100 cm², it's literally a pressure of 69,933,150,000 Kn-m² versus a pressure of only 101 Kn-m². Any fabric that can withstand 1 atm will get completely annihilated by that projectile! It's a ratio of 690,184,862 : 1 for fuck sake! 3. The displacement equation from rest is : s = 1/2 at². Therefore, 23 seconds at 98m/s² would mean a 25km long rail gun, not 2.5km! If a 2.5km long barrel is already unrealistic, 25km is totally out of the question...

[@OtoGodfrey]

I eye balled the diameter and guessed the payload, because the g's and weight are insane anyway. Your rebuttal of 50m radius only halves the g's (10,187) and even then 200kg payload would weight 2037 tons, which is just insane. Where did you get the 11,200kg (full projectile) mass from? If the projectile mass is 11,200kg, then it's 11,200kg x 10,187g's = 114,094 tons of weight due to centrifugal force @ 50m radius w/ 2235m/s. US Navy'sGerald R Ford carrier weights 100,000 tons. Think you can spin that weight at 426 rpm on a 50m radius circle without anything breaking? Why are you pointing out rocket piercing ratio of 690,184,862:1 while using expletives? What is the point? I was pointing out that their fabric that can already withstand 101 Kn-m² pressure? That would be an amazing feat for a material already. I never questioned a mach 6 projectile piercing it.

[@nic12344]

@@OtoGodfrey I took the numbers from their website and their videos. As I said, they claim to have tested satellite components at 10,000g and confirmed that they can withstand the force. Many modern carbon fiber materials have tensile strength of over 4,000 MPa, or 407886485 kg-f/m², so that arm would only need to have a cross-section of 0.28 m² to hold the weight of the spinning projectile. I'm sorry if I hurt your sensitive ears with my "bad" words. If you did not question the projectile piercing the fabric, what did you mean by "That is some cool fabric that can handle 46 tones of pressure but the rocket still can punch through" ?

[@OtoGodfrey]

@@nic12344 i worded that "rocket punch through" badly. My mistake. I was thinking the rocket would take damage at mach 6 when hitting something with tensile strength to hold atm pressure over significant area. I do not know how to calc the shock to the rocket from punching through fabric.

[@epiccollision]

Money > Math

[@nightshifter886]

As a physicist, I can say with absolute certainty this is what it looks like: a pipe dream. Angular momentum is what ensures this will never work, no matter what parts of footage are spliced together to make it look like it would work.

[@Cladisio]

This was exactly my concern as well. Not to mention the serious concerns behind any unexpected leaks in vacuum chamber causing catastrophic failure. Not only is it a pipe dream, but it could be incredibly dangerous to everyone in the adjacent control center.

[@angadsingh9314]

You do know that they have a counterweight right... Its not shown here but they do have one

[@Wurtoz9643]

@@angadsingh9314no one mentioned that though?

[@CockMcBallsddd]

@@angadsingh9314 And how does the counterweight moving at the same speed help counteract the lateral movement once the projectile is released? Lol wtf are you talking about. There is no escaping the centrifugal force on the projectile, which WILL make it travel in an unavoidable arc.

[@adamchurvis1]

It works with babies. I proved this many years ago.

[@janbo8331]

Nice! Now can we finally launch Bezos into space?

[@slwsmokin4205]

Just leave him there!

[@kenhimself]

And make it a one-way trip!

[@brianverhalen7050]

@@joydivisionisnotdead67 What brain?

[@thefox4944]

Hope he will never come back

[@BrightBlueJim]

Guy seems to have a bit of a publicity problem.

[@JimConnelley]

Yeah confetti in the lab always means a winner.

[@ronaldchong]

lol true. it's a tired trope. who's job is it to order the confetti? the demoted engineer who switched from metric to imperial?

[@b0obross392]

That's not confetti. Just remains of the satellite.

[@jocramkrispy305]

Did you see the lack of joy in the face of the confetti cannon operator?

[@BrightBlueJim]

You KNOW they had to call everybody back a few days later to do the confetti cannon shot.

[@gavinwigg8057]

Musk never had confetti. That's why he's a failure and Spinlaunch is making billions.

[@MrManjaleu]

This is dumbed down by several issues: 1 - No equipment with moving parts would maintain its structure. 2 - No sample would maintain its cohesion. 3 - No living thing would survive. 4 - No projectile would be accurately launched if its contents were fractionated. Why? Simple! Centrifugal force would crush any of the items listed above, invalidating the investment, launch or study.

[@user-gm7bo5ne5p]

It has to be a fucking joke. I bet my balloons get higher than that rocket does.

[@Baj64]

N°3 : Hold my beer.

[@mw9297]

Weapons applications

[@baneblackguard584]

it's not meant to launch living things... seems like an odd thing to add to your list.

[@bjondersson]

Why didn’t we see more of the projectile’s journey? That would have been interesting. Did it have onboard cameras? Please also provide more details of the test. Did range/height/acceleration/speed meet expectations? What were the expectations? How much energy did the launch consume?

[@haraldschurz9594]

First of all: very cool technology, im really excited. But that is exactly what i thought. It's strange that we only see a few seconds of the launch itself and no real infos about the result, the rest seems like a classic startup marketing-video.

[@b1618t]

This whole video seems very commercial. From the very few seconds seeing the actual projectile exiting, one can se it exiting at en angle. The path up seems twistet as well. This whole concept is odd. The is a whole bunch of things that keep me suspicious of this project.

[@Atlas-zm6bn]

there is barely any info because they actually didnt archive anything exceptional, its a publicity video made to rake in investment founds.

[@karloKasupovicnano]

The projectile does not exit in a controlled manner they just had luck it was close to a disaster

[@frankyflowers]

its probably embarrassing

[@Joostmhw]

Finally, space trebuchets; a childhood dream come true

[@asterlofts1565]

Yeet! And Age Of Empires in the real life meme XD

[@ronaldchong]

but it's (mechanically) nothing like a trebuchet, right. it's really a space shepherd's sling. 🙂

[@Joostmhw]

@@ronaldchong thanks Ronald we really needed that clarification to make the joke less funny

[@colorbz1888]

maybe they took it from richie rich film hahahaha

[@czpanama]

Yep, it's a scam come true.😉

[@bside8568]

can we talk about how this thing could possibly scale ? imagine the size to carry an actual satellite. let alone the mechanics to hold it and release. safety mechanisms ... this seems like someone had too much time and found someone with money just to spend the money

[@theexchipmunk]

@Michael Hill And you also did not mention that any satellite fired from this would need to be engineered to withstand those extremely high G forces. Massively reducing what you can actually put into it payload wise because it would need to be really sturdy. A normal satellite would get crushed like a tin can.

[@D3nn1s]

@psych0_path what is it with you people than you can read and understand english just fine but youre unable to write english and expect everybody to read kyrillic? :D

[@D3nn1s]

@psych0_path theres no auto translate button below your comment and the one from your first comment is gone too lol.

[@endokrin7897]

Can we all just take a minute to mock the Wright Brothers because their first flight was so short? OMG, how humiliating for them! 😁 Imagine if they wanted to fly at 300 knots; that wing fabric wouldn't hold up. Did they even consider that? And don't get me started on those losers with car phones that take up the entire back seat and a ROOF antenna! How will they ever make a hand-held phone we can use to mock them online? Online! Ha! That's a riot. Like those nutjobs could ever make a system of tubes big enough for us to stream UHD videos (on a phone small enough to hold in our hand!) SpinLaunch should just give up now; they're obviously a bunch of losers who don't know anything! You get 'em boys! 🤔😌🤨😋😁

[@barteepage4109]

@psych0_path That's the first time I've seen anyone call English simple. Could you explain what you mean further? I'm very curious of your view of English as myself being a native speaker.

[@nf3922]

0:48 so if it moved that much laterally when exiting in that short a time, how are you going to convince anyone that it didn't just tumble there after?

[@CockMcBallsddd]

Its laughable. Look at how far it moved laterally, like 2 diameters in a few feet. If it didn't tumble it came out weak as hell and just limp noodled back to the ground.

[@EchelonBlue]

fins on the projectile imparted a spin, stabilizing the flight. saw the actual test footage. the goal of this test was successfully release the projectile AND get the spin arm to slow without shredding itself after being unloaded. in this, spin launch wildly succeeded.

[@FirstnameLastname-rc8yd]

Yeah but I double down on this question. Math ain’t mathin’ as some ignorant folks like to say.

[@EchelonBlue]

@@FirstnameLastname-rc8yd this footage was for a scaled down version of the larger rocket they're designing. as for the original question, there is a longer video that clearly shows the rocket begin to spin as it leaves the launch chamber and gets into the air where the fins can do their work. the goal was to test the timing of the release mechanism, and to calculate the forces on the rotating arm at a scale size, so they could figure out what forces would be for the full size model they want to build. all of this to answer a question: can we sling a 200 kg payload high enough that a second stage rocket can complete the launch and eliminate the need for the entire first stage and its propellant load? said another way, the results achieved matched the results predicted by the math.

[@FirstnameLastname-rc8yd]

Okay. So anything can be slung straight upward when sized down and given a team of people behind it. Proof of concepts are great and all. No one is debating that. I think the issue is that when it departs it is not even starting on a ballistic trajectory. So could some fins with adequate speed correct that? Sure… if it’s a nerf football. But this wouldn’t be. Like flight was theoretically possible for a whistle. But you don’t see DaVinci’s machine floating anything up there.

[@tarkh]

Nice! Cool firework show! Now let's get back to work with SpaceX and Soyuz launches

[@reiki2165]

I think it is just a test to see if it can even work to eject things out safely. At 0:46, the projectile seems to have tumbled out alot. Also before that, the whole missle seems to have deviated horizonally right on penetration. Im not rocket scientist but bullets going out of a gun that tumbles is a no go when it comes to aero dynamics. Watch the launch at .25x and you can see it.

[@ophello]

Why do you say “alot”? Do you not understand that it isn’t a word?

[@reiki2165]

@@ophello Hmm. I am not trying to win any awards nor I am flawless when it comes to spelling/grammer. And yes. I know that is not a word at the very least. I just don't like going back to editing stuffs on a phone after I typed out a whole paragraph.

[@shark101au2]

@@ophello clown

[@slavibonev9076]

You made very good observations. Confirmed! If this would be tremendous success they would put the numbers (height etc) right in the video. But at least they showed that it works.

[@philgardocki5294]

I think there is tumble because before the projectile breaks through the membrane, it is in a vacuum, and so the stabilizing fins have no effect.

[@rowmagnvs]

Apparently this is a scaled down version of the final size, and only 20% of the power > At Spaceport America in New Mexico on 22 October 2021, SpinLaunch conducted the first vertical test of their accelerator at 20% of its full power capacity, hurling a 10-foot (3.0 m) long passive projectile to an altitude of "tens of thousands of feet". This test accelerator is 108 ft (33 m) in diameter, which makes it a one-third scale of the operational system that is being designed.[13][14][15]

[@aluxtaiwan2691]

Human already invented too many things to the point we have to reinvent spinning stone with a rope, Truly Magnificent.

[@LitAlexV]

a large and expensive project for the study of simple laws of physics. 1. Center-shooting acceleration will be 350,000 G - will destroy any electronics 2. Departure at a speed of 9 km / s in a dense atmosphere will be tantamount to the explosion of a small bomb that will explode even steel.

[@FantasticPyroclastic]

"Accelerating something to 5000 mph, which is several times the speed of sound, necessitates the use of electronics capable of withstanding 10,000g. However, testing has shown that satellite systems are capable of withstanding such acceleration."

[@ES-qe1nh]

@@FantasticPyroclastic who paid you to defend vaporware

[@LitAlexV]

@@FantasticPyroclastic OK, Earth escape velocity is 7.91km/s . Energy to get to 200km orbits mv2/2 = mh G => v=2km/s So to get to 200km orbit (without atmosphere ) object has to have 9.91 km/s of starting speed let's add air friction and we get 11-12 km/s Ill take 10km/s lets calculate: NG = V^2/G*R = 10000m/s ^2 / (9.8m/s^2 * 75 m radius of wheel) = 136 000 G And how do you like this, Elon Musk?

[@cogoid]

@@LitAlexV That is all fine, but that is not what they are trying to do. The centrifuge is meant to only throw a small two-stage rocket with a moderate velocity of 2 km/s, such that it can get above the dense atmosphere and then use simple pressure-fed high altitude rocket engines.

[@LitAlexV]

@@cogoid Ok, so what's a profite? (2*2/7.91*7.91 ) = 6.3%. That means 2km/s is only 6.3% of needed Energy. So no any chance to accelerate to orbit speed with one stage rocket.

[@ProfPlum83]

File under: “Pipe Dream”

[@edwardgoldthorpe8260]

Why is there so much negativity in the comments? Did I miss something? They built an interesting way to launch things into space. That's cool! Maybe it is commercially viable or useful in some way, or maybe not. But certainly creativity and a willingness to try something are still very much alive!

[@abbofun9022]

Because this is one big scam, it is technically simply not feasible

[@DanielVerberne]

I fully accept that chemical rocketry is inherently limited. It's shocking just how rapidly the biggest rockets consume their enormous tanks of fuel and that speaks to the low efficiency of the process. I'm impressed by the idea behind this, but as others have pointed out, this is a video that a marketer would produce, not the video an engineer sharing actual progress would produce.

[@BOOSETO]

If rockets are limited then what do you call this? This thing is losing energy to second it leaves that stupid centrifuge.

[@_Gypsy]

Yikes, looked like it didn't leave the system traveling perfectly straight. Honestly looked like it tumbled almost immediately.

[@al-hn7fc]

That's why they cut the the video as they did. The whole concept is really stupid and will never work.

[@negocios6004]

To be a test it turned out quite well, with each launch the design is improved, as happened with the project mercury

[@epiccollision]

@@negocios6004 except the laws of physics are absolute, this thing will destroy itself before putting anything into orbit.

[@Sharpless2]

@@epiccollision wrong. Sadly theres no remind me bot on youtube but ill do my best to reply here again to embarrass you when they do reach orbit.

[@airatshakirov]

​@Sharpless2 it's impossible get to orbit with "one thrust" systems. I always was sus about idea. There's no way that structure can stay without damage while spinning something to speed around 8km/sec. More than that, most rocket reach that speed after they exit atmosphere, because air resistance EXTREMELY EFFECTIVE stops any object. So, they need, I think, 1.5x of orbital speed(12km/sec) at launch to give any serious energy to object when it'll pass Karman line. And then, you need some thrusters inside that "bullet"... I was skeptical about structural damage while it was only 8km/sec. When It's 12km/sec, which means 2x energy... And re-entry effect... I don't believe it's anything that would work on any level of rocket science. I can believe that it'll be military launcher for Nukes(I can't say, how far it can throw something potentially, but it's seems real, when getting orbit - not even close)

[@Waltham1892]

Anyone but me notice that the projectile came out of the launcher with a lot of lateral movement? As evidenced by its path through the seal, its traveling as much sideways at it is vertically. If the projectile is traveling sideways, the control surfaces will impart a lot of drag that will disrupt airflow and cause the projectile to fly erratically, possibly even tumble. So, yeah, not going to work.

[@baneblackguard584]

it has rotational momentum. it was just spinning, it doesn't stop rotating just because they let go of it. as soon as it hits atmosphere it's shape would cause it to quickly realign it's axis with it's direction of travel through the atmosphere.

[@OKOKOKOKOKOKOK-zn2fy]

Bore two vertical shafts next to each other in the mountains of Utah, ten miles deep. One is the launch tube. The other, the drop tube for a massive piston. They are connected by a U shaped turn in the shafts that link them together at the bottom. Low Reynold's Number. When you drop the massive the piston down the shaft, air pressure accelerates the payload very gently to a high speed. The piston is many times the mass of the payload. As the piston approaches the bottom of the shaft, it is further decelerated by an electromagnetic field coil. The opposite coil is in the other shaft and helping to accelerate the payload into orbit at 6 Gs. When the payload clears the top of the shaft, it will be at 9000' and moving very fast. ( A nice head start. ) A substantial amount of the Earth's atmosphere will be below the payload and its booster. That's when you light your small payload assist rocket motor and nose tip plasma generator to make orbit. Essentially, I am replacing the lower stages of a rocket with a reusable ground based accelerator. My system can be used several times a day to put payloads into orbit. It's cheap and most of the energy for the launch is ground based. It can also safely accelerate people into orbit without crushing them into a liquid. ( Nice feature. Don't you think ? ) Once fired, recover the piston to the top of the shaft and lower the next payload to the bottom of the other shaft. Repeat as needed. Cheaper solutions are better solutions. $400 / kg to orbit anyone ? I wonder if Elon is hiring... or maybe Jeff.

[@spencer963]

Yeah, but how high did it go? What was it's speed? How does this test stack up to the required physics to get a payload into space? Incredible g's...

[@consideringorthodoxy5495]

~30,000 ft. 1200 mph.

[@spencer963]

@@consideringorthodoxy5495 cool, and I realize this was just a test. A scaled down test. Gotta go a lot higher than 6 miles, so obviously gotta spin it much faster. The main hurdle I see isn't one being discussed much here. Releasing a mach 10 (or probably more, anyone know the formula?) Kinetic missile from near vacuum to sea level atmospheric pressure would surely be damning. Mach 10 is probably an under estimate to what's actually needed. It's a cool giant science experiment funded by either the scientifically illiterate or the one's only interested in experimentation.

[@consideringorthodoxy5495]

@@spencer963 yeah, to be honest, I really thought it was a stretch too. Cool project tho

[@StevenBanks123]

And its all straight up. You have no orbital velocity. Reaction first stages, for all their inefficiency, transition. Into some horizontal, velocity--gaining thrust as soon as possible.

[@CockMcBallsddd]

You can do the math really easily. . .the amount of force needed to throw something into actual orbit is stupid and its orders of magnitude beyond what this design will ever be capable of. There's a reason this idea has been around for so long without anyone sinking money into it - its stupid. There's no other word for it. It might even be a scam. Because any competent engineer or physicist can tell you, the forces needed are INSANE and it'll likely never be possible. Certainly not possible with this coyote vs roadrunner shit.

[@archipandara9441]

1960 space engineer: what you people use to send stuff to the space? 2022 space engineer: an trebuchet 60' engineer: ...what?

[@pkillor]

2.22 km/s! That's a good start... It will be a great method to put it into practice on the Moon. The Moon escape velocity is 2.38 km/s, to orbit its resources and then be docked in orbit for later return to Earth.

[@tomeisenmenger7048]

Brings to mind, "The Moon is a Harsh Mistress."

[@cogoid]

In this demo the velocity was 0.3-0.4 km/s. For 2 km/s they need to develop a much more advanced and three times larger unit.

[@pkillor]

@@cogoid Thank you! That's what I suspected when I saw more information on this topic. Then I imagine that it will be a forecast for the L100 model or higher? Anyway in an interesting concept If in the future they can implement it on the Moon or even on the space station or similar.

[@cogoid]

@@pkillor Sure, it is an interesting challenge to work on, if somebody is willing to bankroll the project. But many people are very skeptical about the economics of this idea. The large catapult will be launching a 10 ton two-stage rocket, which will be delivering 200-400 kg into orbit. But an ordinary rocket, for example Electron from Rocket Lab is also a two stage, 12 ton rocket, which delivers 300 kg into orbit starting from the ground without any catapult. Ordinary rockets are much easier to construct because they do not have to withstand 10000g acceleration, and they can also launch a wider variety of payloads -- not only specially hardened satellites capable of surviving 10000g. Even without considering the cost of the centrifuge and the technical challenges of making it work, it is hard to see why the 10000g rocket should be cheaper than the conventional one. But it would be a lot of fun trying to make this work, that's for sure.

[@pkillor]

@@cogoid True, at first glance it is not promising but it is like a gamble. it is like a gamble that if it pays off, then it will have great potential in certain sectors. As in the case of the return of lunar samples.

[@BrBill]

I can't help but get the "Contact" film vibe, in that if something goes wrong during late spin-up, the damage will be catastrophic. Good thing there will never be people inside such a device.

[@michelem.6104]

As a minimum, this might be the best/cheapest way to send mined material (rare earths, etc.) from the lunar (or Mars) surface into orbit.

[@epiccollision]

Rail gun….

[@alemalvina7624]

Its highly viable on the moon

[@endokrin7897]

Yes! Too many people are thinking inside the box. Too many people are thinking as earth-based lifeforms stuck in the present. If we want to make that big jump as a society and a species, we've got to start DREAMING again. What happened to the entrepreneurial spirit? When did we start laughing at inventors? (Always, actually!) When did we get so cynical that we spend our time on KZbin, leaving sardonic comments about how dumb and unfeasible this technology is?!?! I, for one, am excited about this. And no, I don't think they'll be launching humans into orbit with this. 🤔 I guess humans have always had nay-sayers. Why vs. Why Not? I'll keep my head gazing up, and keep getting excited over this stuff. Some of you people can enjoy life as-is; the rest of us will be looking to the future!! 👌👍👍✌️

[@LyroLife]

As kid shooting a rock in his selfmade rubber slingshot would give just as much information as this video

[@user-uw8um4qz2d]

0:47 Is it only me or does the projectile seem to be wobbling?

[@chronokoks]

yep seems it's rotating

[@ronaldchong]

looks to be translating to me, i.e., the release trajectory wasn't perfectly parallel to the centerline of the release tube.

[@rks1738]

Also this is supposed to be a vacuum but it makes swoosh sounds while spinning?

[@user-uw8um4qz2d]

​@@rks1738 You mean at 0:32? I can't see any projectile in there. Maybe it isn't the actual vacuum chamber. On second thought, the blades' rpm is quite low which makes me think it could've been shot at an early stage before the air was pumped out.

[@OliverandHisDad]

@@rks1738 you can hear sounds from the outside. You'd definitely be able to hear it.

[@porovaara]

This could be the way to get all the heavy materials and tools into space. People ride rockets. This could give them a constant set of materials needed out there.

[@simonea9303]

Exactly! They plan to provide commercially available launch options in 2024. The stars are the limit - literally!

[@al-hn7fc]

Can't you see how the projectile left in an angle? they didn't even show how high it reached before cutting it off

[@deathblosomrules]

You do know that there needs to be an orbital velocity, right? Getting up there is only half the problem, reaching orbital velocity is the other.

[@getstuk87]

By "tools" does that include Bezos?

[@porovaara]

@@getstuk87 jeffreeeee bezooos you did it!

[@totalcomplexity]

If this has such potential on Earth, imagine using this in orbit. Just aim'n'launch. Kinda poor man's mass effect field but anyway that kicks ass. :D

[@nickmcdonald3083]

Thats literally the point yeah.

[@concordegaming5037]

You’d need to launch two at a time spinning in opposite directions to counteract the torque produced, but yeah

[@Hokunin]

assuming direct control

[@aks6143]

U dont need this in orbit, gravity does that for you there

[@robertlifea6405]

How to generate than the counter torque on the spin platform in space 😂😂😂 A lot of engineers here….

[@vitaminwaterdaisuki]

appx 10,000g at 7.1rev/s with full scale version (100m diameter) on the projectile so everything must withstand that G. Very difficult I must say. I really don't think it will work for satellites. Surely a way to get some materials into space, though...

[@simonea9303]

They use a process called "ruggedization" to ensure commercially available materials are able to withstand the G forces inside the Orbital Accelerator.

[@vitaminwaterdaisuki]

@@simonea9303 "ruggedization" doesn't quite work on many things such as moving parts..etc. It will surely snap most moving arms..etc or even compressed chambers. It will just not work as the G is just too high. Most of the satellites now being launched are not ready for it at least.

[@LitAlexV]

No, NG= V*V/G*R = 136000 G Where V=10km/s, G=9.8, R= 75m

[@BrightBlueJim]

@@vitaminwaterdaisuki Also remember that the - I guess you'd call it the second stage? - has to still work after being subjected to this. Which might be okay if it's solid-fueled, but at SOME point, like unfurling those solar panels, maybe, or any kind of orbital maneuvering thrusters, you've got to have moving parts that survived the launch.

[@BrightBlueJim]

@@LitAlexV Your 10km/s assumes that all of the velocity comes from the launch, and I guess, a lot of loss before you get to orbit, because you only need about 7km/s for low-Earth orbit. The animation they've released in a separate video shows a second stage firing. This is not a Jules Verne space cannon. All it's trying to replace is the big, expensive 1st-stage.

[@kristifisher388]

Does anyone else still feel like the guy at 0:57 every time they see a rocket launch? If you had asked me a week ago, I would have never thought this possible.

[@Happy.Viewer]

Yes. ☺ It is wonderful. Good luck to Spinlaunch.

[@simonea9303]

The evolution of material science to make light weight yet high strength materials, such as the modern carbon fiber is at the crux of what makes SpinLaunch technology feasible today. These modern-day materials allow readily accessible devices to withstand the 1000-g forces exerted in the Orbital Accelerator system.

[@010111010110]

Because it is not possible, this project is a scam.

[@Lego6979]

You would have actually been right.

[@MatthewBaran]

You were right when you were skeptical. It's just a scam

[@tnightwolf]

Whoever got fooled by this video... i dunno what to tell you...0:47 at 0.25x speed.. That's not a bullet! That is simply a cylinder sniping around without any type of control! It's like you've figured-out how to build the rope-part that propels an "inverted spinning-top" uncontrollably, without even realizing that a spinning-top works because it doesn't have to fight Gravity (on the contrary, it uses Gravity as a tool).

[@robst247]

Yet another perfect opportunity to showcase over-the-top bombastic elevator muzak (the only difference in this case being that the elevator's velocity is a little higher than normal).

[@1StinkyFinger]

Can’t wait to see Shatner after he goes up in that one!

[@eeronat]

He'd become a phyllo dough during the spin before even launching

[@woodstockjon420]

Perfect

[@FantasticPyroclastic]

He will be renamed to Flatner.

[@ritterbruder212]

Put a guy in a centrifuge spinning that fast and they’ll be dead from G-forces long before launch.

[@krystalpalace2k]

Lol, vaporware. The dude was like "I'm gonna do an elon musk". Let us know when you get even 50% toward a successful launch and we'll take another look.

[@ianstradian]

No data, just a montage of what they think will make investors more confident in investing.

[@user-bq8pt6lw1d]

1- Снаряд вращается вокруг своей поперечной оси с частотой, равной частоте вращения лопасти пращи ( около 50-80 оборота в секунду) При отрыве снаряда его вращение должно остановится аэродинамическими стабилизаторами ? Это очень больщие ударные нагрузки. 2- дисбалланс после отрыва снаряда мгновенно разрушит всю установку. Должен быть противовес, который отрывается одновременно с полезным грузом и улетает в отдельный тоннель в землю (180°). Взрыв от удара по земле (m•v"/2) разнесёт и саму установку. 3- пробивание мембраны и встреча с плотным воздухом на скорости 10M, это как удар в крепкую стену. 4- карбоновая лопасть центрифуги тоже испытает мощный удар, когда воздух ворвётся в камеру. Много проблем, не думаю, что это реализуемо….

[@geocapthlp2173]

Would also like to know what altitude the rocket reached for the test.

[@frankyflowers]

its obviously not impressive. they should make a gun

[@Ashargall]

It reached 10000 meters, actually

[@TheSuperDotcom]

@@frankyflowers are you kidding? The whole point is to not use propellants that pollute. Rocket fuel is WAY cleaner than gun powder. "Make it a gun!" 😂. Despite what the NRA leads you to believe, you can't solve all issues with a gun.

[@gumby511]

The video said 10,000 meters

[@frankyflowers]

@@TheSuperDotcom you do know this is bogus don't you?

[@adj2]

There is a reason why rockets start slow at sea level and increase speed as the air gets thinner. We have been down this road when they were thinking about using a Cannon to shoot a projectiles into space. I guess no one studies history. The thick atmosphere and high g force required make this a no starter. If you were trying to do this a rail gun would have been a better source to accelerate the projectile. But Of course those engineers working on the rail gun knows the limitation of the velocity which can be achieved at sea level. Oh boy.

[@baneblackguard584]

lighter-than-air platform, get it as high in the atmosphere as possible, with a gun to fire small satellite rockets. the more velocity you are able to impart via energy on the platform, the less rocket fuel it would need to carry to establish an orbit. might even be able to just have ion thrusters on it if you can get the velocity high enough right off the bat.

[@lgbfjb7160]

How far did it ascend? Pretty important data along with payload weight and other specs and parameters of the test.

[@iamauser7125]

How high did the projectile go?

[@aaravparikh7140]

I have the same question

[@JameBlack]

Right into the gods eye

[@aaravparikh7140]

@@JameBlack good one😂

[@lokisg3]

as high as hyperloop project.

[@futbolita89742]

looks like it topped at 300 ft

[@EvanTownsend]

I feel like this is relatable to the fyre festival

[@christianj4625]

Thunderf00t already busted this spinning Hyperloop thing. Looks great at the first but has a lot of isues if you do the math and the physiks. A capsule returning from space had around mach 20 and reaches tempratures around 1700° in nearly vacuum. And they try to lounch a Rocket whit mach 7 at seelevel whit 100% atmosphere. This thing will melt down in the second it touches the air. Maybee it could be something for the Moon or MAYBEE Mars but nothing for a planet whit atmosphere on it. I would highly recoment to watch his video: @

[@negocios6004]

You cannot compare mach 20 with mach 7 dude, the temperature is incredibly lower as it increases to the cube, also for something it has an aerodynamic profile and a possible heat shield

[@dylanm.3692]

Did you just call this the Hyperloop lmfao

[@LitAlexV]

Steel would explode like a big firework.

[@christianj4625]

@@negocios6004 You dont understand why the capsule/missile is heathing up. Its not because of the speed its about the presure in front of the vessel. If there is a more dense athmosphere around it heads upt that much. So you could compare Mach 7 at ground level whit around mach 700 in near space orbit. Because there is only 1% athmosphere. At the point where the missile is leaving the vacuum of the chamber, it would be like its flying against a solid wall. Its simply not posible to make the airodynamic bether to lower this effekt. The fastest plains on earh could not go this fast even in higher altitudes.

[@christianj4625]

@@dylanm.3692 Yeah its nealy as rusted als the Hyperloop and in basic its the same technology but spining instead of linear. And the bullshit told about the projekt is nearly the same as Elon Musk told.

[@thomasmaughan4798]

0:10 NEVER have a cup of liquid near a keyboard or other computer devices.

[@KafshakTashtak]

Pretty interesting concept. I am sure dead loads like water, food or fuel can be launched like this, but I wonder if sattelites can tolerate the acceleration while spinning.

[@matthewtremain683]

Apparently yes. The electronics can withstand the 10,000 Gs of force, that is put through the projectile.

[@jocramkrispy305]

I'd go for ice, not water.

[@Kozman88]

bruh the moment that the projectile touches the air it will blow up. The drag alone will destroy the satellite. This is all basic physics and is all a scam.

[@jocramkrispy305]

@@Kozman88 HARP demonstrated that is not the case

[@Lego6979]

@@jocramkrispy305 What's HARP?

[@stupendouslife8128]

It is awesome to see the new generations working on it, comparing to 60's and 70's more aging people working on it at that time, less white collar and ties, thanks to those people back on 60's, mankind is moving to the next steps these days on communications, weather, planet earth observation and a lot useful data to improve mankind's life 😀👍😀👍👏👏

[@simonea9303]

The coolest part is how they made being environmentally integral to their design. Unlike in the 60s and 70s when fuel-driven rocket design was the norm, now SpinLaunch uses centripetal forces for most of the energy needed to launch the rocket into space. Yes, indeed, we sure have come a long way!

[@lokisg3]

umm... back in 60's and 70's, they actually done this type before by shooting with a cannon and see how it behave, not looking good. Heck, rail cannon already invented, just that only the military's own it.

[@Blaukriton]

What can you send up, spare parts for the toilet on the ISS? I don't think sensitive electronics.

[@bradleyrex2968]

There is no need for fuel, oxygen, water, building materials, or any other bulk materials in space. Is there?

[@robertarnold9815]

A rule of professional rocketry is you never say "fire" instead of "launch." On a rocket range "fire" means there is a fire!

[@aniksamiurrahman6365]

Where can I find details like: trajectory, highest altiude reached, initial speed, mass of the projectile, total energy cost etc?

[@enzicalabs6166]

Hey! Spin launch!!! I know you've been having some issues with wear and vibrations on your central drive related to instability after releasing the payload. Use a series of graduated counterweights nested inside the central shaft to decelerate the assembly. Unless you have a beast of an EE that can stabilize your shit without melting your armatures.

[@polytux1]

I, too, questioned the huge system imbalance at launch. How is the CW slowed or disengaged? Are there aerodynamic brakes deployed from the long arm? Is the CW ejected into a pile of sand? ;^) How does the Mylar launch cover maintain its integrity during pre-launch? ........too many questions...

[@polytux1]

I watched Launch #7 video. It mentions a water brake near the end. ?? :^/

[@justinwarshaw3202]

Congrats!

[@AIM-9X_Sidewinder]

idk man, the whole rocket has to be projected to sustain high G forces from going up AND sideways because of the spin and the whole mechanism to launch it

[@user-ss7qy2pq2m]

This is the future. No fuel to buy or contaminate the planet. If only for unmanned vehicles, this is the ultimate way to save the planet. I am hopeful this will carry forth and bring on a lot of other vehicles for the use of this technology. Good going you guys. You gave me hope

[@walterrudich2175]

You are kidding. This will never work

[@user-ss7qy2pq2m]

It'll work comon @@walterrudich2175

[@tehalexy]

"Hey, you wanna have your sattelite up? does it withstand an hour of 15.000g force? nope?" just imagine how your pc would like if you take it on a rope and spin it up :D

[@ericstone8778]

:| an hour ?

[@ByronAgain]

Yep. It would tend to make a mess out of a payload.

[@peterallen2889]

SpinLaunch Suborbital Accelerator (Latin: Yeetimus Rocketus)

[@rchrdgrn]

When the time comes this would be an ideal concept for launch from the moon For robotic missions. Possibly missions involving asteroid diversion. Might be more efficient than a linear accelerator for some launches.

[@28704joe]

I applaud these guys for applauding themselves.

[@JudahRichardson1]

A simple a = (v^2)/r gives a whopping ~10000 g centripetal acceleration. I don't know of any (non-warhead) payloads that are designed to withstand that. For one, I'd guess a lot of OTS components simply won't work (unless you're using stuff from smart artillery shells, but I don't know what the state of the art there is). This means payloads have to be designed from the ground up. All of which means you're taking the cost out of the launch vehicle and fuel and putting into the payload. Probably with worse economies of scale as your payload is going have to be highly custom to survive the launch. I could see this working for payloads that aren't too complicated and/or fragile (e.g. a simple cubesat) though. Maybe that's the market SL are after?

[@kennethschultz6465]

No no no You are just full of math And and and stoff.. (Hope you get it)

[@juanravera6502]

Por que crees que no estás trabajando en eso?

[@Fish-ns5ny]

@@juanravera6502 what kind of retarded counter argument is that

[@simonea9303]

The cell phone has become an everyday item that you use almost every day to connect with loved ones, or the cutest kittens on social media. Much of the technology that drives the functionality of the cell phone comes from satellites. These satellites need to be launched into space. Other support hardware also need to be launched into space to help support and maintain these satellites over time. SpinLaunch provides a much more energy efficient way to launch rockets into space using centripetal force instead of massive amounts of fuel. And it doesn’t end there.

[@faxepl]

so how many rockets did they actually launch into orbit? What was its payload?

[@simonea9303]

They had their first inaugural launch to space last month (October 2021), but they've been testing in their laboratories since 2015. They were able to launch a satellite during this launch. Right now, their system is designed to launch satellites up to 200 kilograms.

[@epiccollision]

@@simonea9303 so 6 years and they still have ignored all the physics telling them this is an awful idea…rail guns exist, stop spinning things like a numpty.

[@DonsArtnGames]

I'd like to see what lateral forces are being applied to the payloads

[@Salanan]

So where did it land? Can you control its trajectory?

[@EEBPioneer]

This launch approach is more crazy than even Sir Branson could imagine!

[@bobrocks79]

Launching satellites into space using the latest in Hot Wheels technology!

[@-30h-work-week]

Try mountain Whitney. You gain 4,42 km. (14.500 ft.) to begin with. Plus, the atmosphere is 50% up there. Far less drag. Also: easier to create vacuum, easier for projectile to break through the mylar thinner-membrane, easier to slam into the atmosphere barrier. You can install a wind-mill there and generate your electricity on the spot.

[@michaelchapman7521]

So exciting to watch! Wishes for ultimate success with future testing.

[@GameplayReviewUK]

Less than 1 000 likes? Wake up KZbin!

[@HolgerGruber]

Remember Robert A. Heinlein's "The Moon Is a Harsh Mistress"? There they use catapults to send cereals and other "goods" from Moon to Earth. Heinlein's catapults are railgun types, but the SpinLaunch approach would provide a better way to aim in the intended direction.

[@Lego6979]

How on Earth did you come to that conclusion? Releasing the payload with any precision from an arm spinning this fast is a complete crapshoot.

[@epiccollision]

Yeah rail guns are a lot simpler, it’s just a track with magnets.

[@bootstraphan6204]

🤯 Congrats! 👏🎉 👍👍 🤜🤛

[@mikelastname]

I hear a giant sling-shot is also in the works, called SpeargunLaunch, and the jelly rubber has as much stored energy as Little Boy.

[@EatDrinkCook]

So we have come back to idea just throwing rocks into space

[@MAZ501]

They need to make the facility at around 3000-4000 meters from sea level which is possible, and improve reduce atmospheric pressure issues by more than 50% compared to sea level or thereabouts. It'll improve efficiency and reduce costs significantly. atmospheric drag at Himalayan heights may be 20-30 percent compared to sea level. Try it out, or I'll make one in a few years...

[@runinthecity3617]

Make all of this work at Himalaya heights is such a challenge because of the cold and the weather. I don't even mention workers living conditions.

[@MAZ501]

@@runinthecity3617 Only the launch pad, not all the work, moreover it is better to work on a better funded space project than be an underpaid Porter. we've adequate population already living at those heights, and they'll be more than thankful for the working opportunities.

[@rekeshali]

@@MAZ501 “only” the launch pad is the significant majority of the job. I’m curious how many qualified technicians live in the area that would meet the USA permanent resident requirement for working on ITAR projects. I’m also curious what it would cost to get the materials up there. Then think about how much money would be wasted for all that just for this thing to fail in the other obvious ways.

[@MAZ501]

@@rekeshali Who said it needs to be in USA? two of your questions got smashed out of the park with that...😂👍 You think only US has billionaires or a space program?

[@rekeshali]

@@MAZ501 you’re right about that but even if it was proposed for the moon this is a terrible idea

[@douglasharbert3340]

Every person who designed that contraption received an F in physics. Guaranteed.

[@charlesdjones1]

Okay, give it 5 years and these guys will still be "scaling it up". 😂

[@afinmuhammed4493]

I had the same idea of launching something into the orbit this way….. but i was born late… I don’t see it as an excuse….. as it is evident that I’ve already done some works for this in my notepad while attending boring classes cause I’m still a kid….😌😊

[@010111010110]

Don't worry about it, it doesn't work and this project is a scam.

[@ZZ-vt7tt]

The background music makes me feel as I'm being chased by an evil entity from another dimension with murderous intent.

[@LisaBowers]

Epic comment! 🤣

[@KafshakTashtak]

Nah, that's Rick and Morty Music that does it.

[@StevenBanks123]

Altitude is not orbit. For minimized friction, vertical launch is necessary. All orbital (horizontal) velocity must be gained by rocket. All conventional rockets transition to partially horizontal as soon as air density reduction allows. The spin system is a “first stage” with zero horizontal velocity. Given ths limitation, they are, in a sense, starting from an 80km. (?) mountaintop and thrusting horizontally, while FALLING at near 1 G, so the rocket still has to claw for altitude, using some percentage of fuel that will not be contributing to orbital speed. The advantages shrink. It is still good to try new approaches.

[@vitlastovka2728]

Just wow! Can we see more footage from the projectile

[@epiccollision]

Lol no

[@andypayne2743]

It tumbles watch it at 0.25 speed

[@dv6342]

No because it didn’t produce the results they wanted.

[@SpadeNya]

COOLEST THING ON THE PLANET RN! If I had a degree I would set up a tent in that desert if it meant work there, even though I'm sure the hail would be terrible. 🤷‍♂️ I'm sure I'll never get an answer, but with the membrane system, have there been any drawbacks or problems with air rushing into the vacuum chamber and lessening the launch speed of the projectile? I'd know if I had that degree I guess. 😅😂

[@abdurahman3896]

I was also thinking about that

[@epiccollision]

If you had a degree you would see this is all a pipe dream and focus you energy on something actually feasible,

[@tomeisenmenger7048]

Didn't know this was a thing - congratulations on a successful test!! Sooooo... who out there is actually building a space elevator??

[@LisaBowers]

Otis?

[@eleventy-seven]

With wars and a divided population the greatest project ever conceived would be blown up by fools.

[@EEBPioneer]

When will happen an auction for the first piloted tickets?

[@amarug]

If you replaced that projectile with a wet tshirt, imagine how quickly it would dry without the need for a dryer

[@robert7984]

So no statistics on anything???? How high? How fast? Did it come back? How many G's? Smh....

[@arc8218]

Read article on internet bro Dont be lazy 😐 Btw apprx 10k G

[@Atlas-zm6bn]

no statistics on anything because none of the numbers would be impressive.

[@ronaldchong]

you mean data, not statistics. 😝

[@Atlas-zm6bn]

@@ronaldchong, data turns into statistics

[@ronaldchong]

@@Atlas-zm6bn right, but statistics are meaningless when N = 1. (they have only done one launch i believe.) anyway, just having pedantic fun. i knew what the OP meant.

[@AlexanderTsatkin]

Can't wait to see this thing launching daily!

[@simonea9303]

More like multiples times a day!

[@epiccollision]

@Private117 well they might attempt it once, hopefully that will show them how monumentally hard this would be to achieve.

[@dr_jaymz]

1000ft. Now all you need is another 499,000ft.

[@ALucas73]

They have said this one is a one third sized version, 50.4metres across, so the eventual centrifuge will be 151metres in diameter that will supposedly be able to throw 200kg satellites into orbit.

[@zachd1796]

No...wont ever happen

[@ALucas73]

@@carlm8892 It would only be for uncrushable stuff. They could throw tanks of luquids or gases, dry foods, just a cheaper way of sending some things into orbit for the space station. Maybe they could throw robots. The cupola (the Space Station's viewing dome) is having the glass replaced with see through aluminium, like they had in Star Trek 3 or 4, the one with the whales, that could be thrown, I guess. Not everything has a problem with high g forces. Can they do it? I have no idea, but it will be fun watching them try, and amazing if they succeed.

[@MatthewBaran]

And you believed them? Interesting

[@zachd1796]

@@ALucas73 lol, transparent aluminum?

[@dualboy24]

Horrid idea, this will not work on so many levels, no wonder it requires a startup with no science background.

[@CharlesBrodheadIII]

Congratulations! This is what the future looks like.

[@IliyanTrayanov]

[@ronaldchong]

"the future" of what?

[@epiccollision]

The future looks awful.

[@amariner5]

Congratulations! can this be converted for use on a naval vessel? Asking for a friend.

[@HDShayThePro]

I would recommend trying to... spin this into a long range artillery system and market it as that rather than a space rocket alternative because this is never going to put something into orbit.

[@dimtecarte5505]

Incrível, já tinha pensado nessa possibilidade de lançamento depois q assistir um episódio de Max Steel, mas a SpinLaunch fez de uma forma diferente totalmente inovadora e econômica.

[@tremoxo]

SpinScam

[@bjondersson]

Wonder what is on the blurred out parts on the Graphana dashboards? What confidential data could they contain? Also the footage of a couple of surveillance video cameras is blurred out.

[@cso6565]

Congrats! it will be nice to know what happen to the projectile.

[@maurocardaio949]

Simple and interesting idea. But just before the release, how do we put it with the extreme centrifugal force that is opposed to the centripetal force? Which satellites or technological parts will be able to withstand such forces? A man cannot stand beyond 9G.

[@tuanluu7275]

Its a huge problem when it come with more heavy object. And I think this is not for human btw

[@DeputyNordburg]

With 99.9% of space launches being unmanned, I don't think they need to launch people to be profitable/useful. And if we look at modern artillery shells which contain both explosives and electronics, I think they can make payloads that survive this. Many many challenges to solve before they get to space, and they may never get there, but it will be interesting to see them make progress.

[@andypayne2743]

Also wouldn’t it take a while to spin up to speed and therefore put the launch vehicle under high g for sustained period of time? Unlike conventional rocket launch where the high g is for a relatively short period. This seems like a bit of a scam looking for investors

[@DeputyNordburg]

@@andypayne2743 Kliner perkens who helped fund Amazon, google, pelaton, facebook, and many other is a big investor. The fools.

[@andypayne2743]

@@DeputyNordburg really? I think I the theory of this works, but the engineering to make this a reality seems extremely difficult to pull off. Wouldn’t it be really hard to create a vacuum seal around a joint that’s powering the arm to such high speeds? What about the sustained high g the projectile and the arm would be under. What happens when the seal of the vacuum is broken on launch and all that air instantly rushes in? The safety aspect of something going wrong would be difficult to manage too. With the speeds that they are talking about necessary, any failure would cause parts to be flying around with a lot of kinetic energy that would shred things without effort. Maybe this is possible but it would take a huge amount of money, r&d and engineering.

[@MrCdrant]

I guess we're just to ignore the fact that a complex satellite isn't going to fair as well as a solid projectile does at those g forces huh? This thing is a joke lol

[@user-nn9de6vo4b]

Oh yes, you are right. They certainly did not think about it and just wasted so much money on this test. (sarcasm) I don't understand how people can be so stupid.

[@user-nn9de6vo4b]

Imagine building a giant spinning wheel with a rocket inside for a joke lol

[@MrCdrant]

@@user-nn9de6vo4b figure out how to engineer a satellite to withstand 10,000g for an hour yet? The projectile didnt even leave straight lol

[@tremoxo]

@@user-nn9de6vo4b Someone don't understand how scams work LMAO

[@MrCdrant]

@@user-nn9de6vo4b kzbin.info/www/bejne/n5O2e5Kvrp5pn6c Scam!

[@christianalexandernonis2260]

Just heard about this project from a reel and I’m loving it!

[@GrapeFlavoredAntifreeze]

Its a complete crock of shit. Its not gonna make it. 10,900G centrifugal force. You can’t engineer around that

[@garymail4393]

Since they didn't say it , I will say it -- projectile only went a few kilometers high. Not the 120 km needed to enter space.