The Truth About SpinLaunch | Hype or Revolution?

[@DrBenMiles]

What do you think? Revolution (pun intended) or the next Boring Company?

[@joris-rietveld]

the next Boring Company haha

[@TheOwlman]

@@joris-rietveld Definitely. I am with T'f00t on this one.

[@bside8568]

not feasible . while the acceleration is possible high forces and wind resistance can add vibrations , cause the fixtures to be larger, causing more drag etc. this is all fun on a small scale. also the risk factor is disproportionally large a magnetic switch or a hydraulic release timing slightly of would destroy the whole start chamber. that's just a risk no one would want to take.

[@wkinne1]

This will be the standard on the moon to get mined ores into orbit. Maybe even on Mars. But it will for sure be a game changer on the moon.

[@stephencraimer1461]

Combined with the production lines for space vessels and rocket engines, we may be at, what the future will call the start of the next age of humankind, when we go above. Apologies I'm no Churchill.

[@Waltham1892]

Here is a fun fact: when the projectile exits the vacuum of the launcher into the atmosphere, it will be instantly encountering an aerodynamic pressure of 72,818 lb/ft(2). This represents a fluid density of 1.23 kg/m(2) (the air) and a velocity of 2,381 ms (mach 7). So, the projectile will need to be light enough to launch but strong enough to support the weight of a combat loaded armored personnel carrier. That's what I call an engineering challange.

[@Boomchacle]

Funnily enough, A heavy projectile would probably do better since it would have more momentum and keep more of its velocity as it pushes past the atmosphere.

[@johnlshilling1446]

Pure fantasy. But! If a fool and his money are soon parted, there has to be a way to separate the two. This fills the bill...

[@MichaelClark-uw7ex]

There is also the orbital vector, they can only launch in one direction, probably west to east because it requires the least energy to attain orbit.. There is a lot more energy required for a polar or tundra orbit than an equatorial orbit, not to mention even more energy required for a retrograde orbit. Might work quite well on the moon . However the vector, timing and bearing shock problems would still remain.

[@inflamespwn]

its called clickbait

[@robincray116]

Your calculation feels very wrong. 0.5*velocity ^2*density*drag coefficient = drag pressure. With velocity of 2381m/s, density of 1.23kg/m^2, going for say 1 coefficent of drag we get 3,486,534Pa or 505 PSI. In order to get the 72,818 psi you claim you need a coefficent of drag of 144. Normal coefficent of drag is in the order of 0.2 to 2. With it being the highest around the trans sonic range and lower supersonic range (mach 0.8 to mach 1.5) and dropping in hypersonic ranges (mach 7 and above). Furthermore weight can't be compared to a pressure unless you have an area to work off. In order to get 72818psi from a say 10 ton apc, it will have to be exerted over an area of around an 16mm diameter rod aka balancing the entire weight the vehicle on a 5/8 inch rod. Aka bloody ridiculous.

[@Architeuthis87]

If this does not work out on earth it would be effective on the moon or mars to launch payloads. Imagine a massive rail gun or spin launcher on the moon that can shoot supplies to mars. Plenty of solar power to use.

[@11moonshot]

Right! This is different ball game!!

[@NwoDispatcher]

Thorium power too

[@imconsequetau5275]

Once the booster is rapidly reusable, this tech is obsolete.

[@chipblood]

Absolutely. I could see this concept working on the moon or Mars. Cool concept if it can work. If not the videos will certainly be cool.

[@johnpaulcolthrust8207]

Yes, true! 👍👍

[@jamesraymond1158]

A rocket engineer explained that the main problem for SpinLaunch is maxQ, the maximum aerodynamic pressure that a rocket experiences. For normal rockets, maxQ doesn't get very high because it occurs at altitudes of a few miles, where velocity and air pressure are relatively low. For SpinLaunch, maxQ is enormous because it occurs at sea level where both speed and air pressure are maximum. That is what is behind the enormous shock wave that Dr. Miles talks about.

[@xanderak5508]

Shouldn’t be a problem for a rocket designed to support ~40 million pounds (10000 times its weight)…

[@wyrmofvt]

Spinlaunch is hype. Remember the Sprint missile system? This was an ABM that accelerated at a whopping 100 g to intercept ballistic missile warheads. One of the things you note about the Sprint is that it's built like a cone. The reason why is that the frame has to support against its own increased weight as it is accelerated at 100 g, and has to be built as if it were 100 times its real height, but then scaled down in the direction of travel to 1/100th that height. But such a structure has to be thicker at the bottom to support everything above it, plus its own weight. The result is that any high g structure is going to be built like a cone. But spinlaunch has accelerations going to 10,000 g. That means you have to build a structure like it was 10,000 times as tall as it really is, and then squish it down to 1/10,000th of that height. But, of course, no building built with earthy materials can reach 10 km tall, as it would collapse under its own weight. So, a spinlaunch rocket that is a mere 1 m tall in the radial direction behaves as if it were a structure 10 km tall. Of course, it's in tension rather than compression, but that's not really much better. In other words, a rocket that is able to survive spinlaunch has to be built like a Sprint missile on steroids. Or a space elevator. The same goes for any payload you wish to launch: light, but built like a tank in all ways down to its most basic components. This is not something that will be cheap to engineer, even if I believed it were possible. A further problem is that the heating you mention isn't just a nuisance. That heat represents lost velocity. Reentry is enough to get a spacecraft at nearly orbital velocity to subsonic in the upper atmosphere where the air is thin. Down at the ground, the losses are going to be much worse, and of course all that energy has to go somewhere which severely limits where you could place the facility. Furthermore, most of the energy in an orbit is not in the height of the orbit, but in the tangential velocity. To get significant savings for the rocket, you need to launch tangentially, which makes the problems of heating and sonic booms that much worse.

[@kodez79]

The wobbling of the rocket is due to the projectile has rotational speed (thus inertia) as well as tangential speed. As it is released it will start moving in a straight line, but it will also continue rotating. Releasing the rear slightly after the front might pull it back enough to stop it from fully rotating, which might be what they are doing. You see the same behavior with darts.

[@geraldfrost4710]

But, but, but, if you watch the graphics, they've already solved this problem. The travel vector goes from circular to straight at the moment of release. They just aren't telling us how the magic is done. Good luck getting rid of that spin!

[@richardsrichards2984]

no.....as long as no centripetal force no rotation...darts wobble bz of weak materials and instant acceleration.....its not magic..its 1st grade physics

[@geraldfrost4710]

@@richardsrichards2984 A) The acceleration vector at the nose of the rocket and the tail both point at the center of the axis, and are not parallel. That's the definition of centripetal force. 2) A rubber dart and a steel dart both tumble (nose over tail rotation) when thrown; the feathers drag the back end to the back. €) Rotational dynamics is not taught in first grade here on earth.

[@ukornel77]

I just wrote a similar comment when I noticed this one. You are absolutely right. If one has any doubts, just let think about the Moon - it is tidally locked, turning around its own rotation axis in the same long time as the orbital period. If the Earth disappeared, the Moon would fly away in a tangential trajectory, but the rotation would continue in the same monthly rate. The same can be applied to the payload - though the locked rotation is presented not by tidal forces, but he holding/release mechanism that joints it to the tether. In theory, one can imagine a release mechanism that holds the payload aiming constantly at the same direction, but it would add even more to the complexity and the weight.

[@smartazz61]

I watched quite a long video on this. For now, they use a fiberglass counterweight that slams into the inside of the vacuum chamber when the payload releases. Apparently it takes a lot of work to clean up the mess.

[@misiekt.1859]

They just need to cooperate with Boring Company. Launching payloads on one and digging tunnels on the other end at the same time... I bet it will work perfectly fine in CGI.

[@joshuaflackua]

Their plan isn't to release the counterweight at the same time, it's to release it half a revolution later out of the same port. Much more feasible. It seems reasonable that the bearing could hand the stress for half a rev at that speed.

[@joshuaflackua]

I wonder if they might be able to make the counterweight a payload as well.

[@nomercy4521]

@@joshuaflackua That is their eventual plan. Launch 2 payloads.

[@joshuaflackua]

@@nomercy4521 makes sense. It seems like it would be very easy to keep their flight paths from interfering with one another once you were a few miles up. Before that though, I wonder if the second payload would have to be designed differently to prevent bad effects of drafting and turbulence caused by the first

[@DraconaiMac]

A half revoution later? How would the central axle survive that?

[@joshuaflackua]

@@DraconaiMac it's moving very quickly

[@drankenstein5241]

Honestly when I saw the spin launch video I thought idea was just insane and very unlikely to work but they are a real company with real ppl spending money and time working on this project. Maybe they know something we don't know

[@meferswift]

Like Theranos.

[@macalister8881]

Scam

[@Rick_Cavallaro]

>> real ppl spending money and time working on this project Here in Silicon Valley that means nothing. It's astonishing how much time and money I've seen them pour into companies that are totally ludicrous.

[@danielch6662]

People are working on hyperloop too. Means nothing.

[@toomanyaccounts]

@@meferswift Juicero

[@stevewilson5546]

Here are some calculations: 10,000G : 2:48 200kg : 3:01 10,000 G * 200 kg = 2,000,000 kg = 4409245 lb = 2,204 tons - An average cargo ship that holds 100,000 cubic feet has a tonnage of 1,000 tons. That means two cargo ships weigh around 2000 tons. - Thirteen Adult Blue Whales. An adult blue whale weighs around 150 to 200 tons - Two Sierra Redwoods. An average Sierra redwood tree weighs around 1,000 tons -- Six Boeing 747 Jets. One Boeing 747 jet weighs around 300 to 490 tons - Thirty times as heavy as The Space Shuttle. The weight of The Space Shuttle is about 78 tons empty They need to release this with an accuracy of 1/3 millisecond. Good luck.

[@boreddude3898]

seriously, this alone is a fundamental issue i have with this. 10k G's??? that is INSANE, even for a giant structure that's a stupid amount of forces to be exerting on it.

[@stevewilson5546]

@@boreddude3898 Yes. The other problem is there will be an equal amount of mass headed in the opposite direction that has to be released at the same instant. This will make a large hole in the structure, then a large hole in the ground. Moving those masses at Mach 7 will take a lot of energy. I would not want to be anywhere near when they launch. This is obviously a money sink for gullible investors.

[@boreddude3898]

@@stevewilson5546 On the topic of releasing a counterweight, I remember them saying they'd build a sort of shield to absorb the impact, and that it would be easy to clean up. Somehow, I expect that 2k tons slamming into solid metal at mach 7 is not going to be an easy clean up

[@boreddude3898]

@@chuckyxii10 actually, youre right. Come to think of it, how often do they mention the actual weight of the rocket itself, let alone actually describing the forces in the chamber?

[@stevewilson5546]

@@chuckyxii10 You are right. He mentions a couple of thousand kg near the end, which is ten times the weight I used. That means twenty 1,000 ton cargo ships going mach 7. at release. I'd say that is impossible. How come we are the only ones doing the math?

[@392redienhcs]

Firing the counterweight to an 'exhaust port'. Wow! Just fkn wow! Kabloooie!

[@grahamstevenson1740]

My calculations came to an answer of around 0.1 tons TNT equivalent energy. That should be fun.

[@georgwagner4438]

@@DeputyNordburg And how will it be possible with no counterweight? It will explode in a splitsecond when the payload is released, because it will be severly unbalanced at that point.

[@Schnorzel1337]

@@DeputyNordburg They dont throw the passenger lol. The arm is balanced as is. That is so trivial to understand dude.

[@Schnorzel1337]

@@DeputyNordburg Air force centrifuge loses no weight balanced works. Bullshit video here throws away a small skyscraper of effective weight, can not explain without magic => obviously doesn't work.

[@samuels1123]

@@DeputyNordburg If you don't release the counterweight while releasing the payload you get an unbalanced centrifuge, where one side is heavier than the other. The pilot centrifuge is almost balanced, it needs very little speed compared to spin launcher, the cart itself is significantly heavier than the user and is not ejected from the arm. This combination of factors means the forces on the pivot are within tolerance. The spinlaunch centrifuge intends to stay balanced by ejecting both sides at the same time, keeping at least the arm forces within tolerance. At maximum speed, the effective strain of the payload on the arm rises to more than five 747 jets, this must be balanced with an equal force on the opposite side. If only one side is ejected, the pivot arm, now subject to the static load of five 747 jets, will be jettisoned through the chamber wall. If the pivot somehow withstands, the chamber instead will be ripped from its foundation. If the foundation somehow withstands, the immediate area will experience a 4.0 magnitude earthquake or greater

[@punduhmonium3663]

Lol, when the Dr says "bearing" and the video flashes back to the bearing in the launcher... Good stuff. A great pun, even.

[@mattb9343]

Spin launch is a dead end. There are far too many drawbacks and challenges to overcome just to get it to work. Especially when the easier, cheaper, safer, more consistent alternative is to just use a really long rail-gun to assist the launch of a rocket.

[@stancooper5436]

3 key technical challenges: -Reliable release -Extreme heating -Bearing shock Oh and hardly worth mentioning but designing a rocket and satellite that can withstand 10,000 G might require a 'rejig.' One man's rejig is another man's insurmountable technical barrier. Sure an electronics package might be made to withstand that, but the rocket shown in their info-graphic? Get outta town.

[@metachuko]

Real Engineering just released a video on Spinlaunch, and didn't mention the issue of designing a rocket that can withstand 10,000Gs. That's the main problem.

[@ryanduckering]

They did cover it. Satellites in general are already engineered for high G of a standard launch. Apparently they won’t require near as much modification as people think. This obviously doesn’t apply to unique niche satellites.

[@metachuko]

@@ryanduckering Again, there was no mention of the rocket stages. They're not part of the "satellite".

[@stancooper5436]

@@ryanduckering But they will. The 'high G' of a standard launch is

[@retnemmoc101]

@@metachuko There's also the part where he essentially hand-waved the problem of imbalance in the time between the first launch and the second launch as "the bearings and oils should be able to hold".

[@cafe6010]

I'm no space scientist, but to be honest here, I love to watch stupid shit blow up and I really doubt this is going to disappoint..

[@SapioiT]

I think that if you talked about spinlaunch, you should also talk about railgun-like orbital launchers, which are a more traditional approach which could be cheaper to build, safer (lacking the whole bombing your infrastructure issue of spinlaunch), and doesn't require modifying the payload to resist the sudden shift in trajectory which the spinlaunch introduces.

[@tonyhawk123]

What “sudden shift in trajectory”? It simply lets go and it then continues on the trajectory is was on at that moment in time.

[@grahamstevenson1740]

Orbital launchers ? And how exactly do you propose to get them there ? Sci-fi isn't reality.

[@aluisious]

@@tonyhawk123 It simply lets it go and then it continues on the trajectory of burning venture capital.

[@imconsequetau5275]

@@tonyhawk123 The front (leading) latch has to release earlier than the rear latch in order to suddenly zero out the accumulated angular momentum. So you are eliminating 400-700 RPM in milliseconds, depending on the arm length. This applies a concussive twisting shock to the rocket internal structures, including the payload. Next, the rocket is in perfect free fall in the exit tube vacuum -- until it hits the thin membrane holding back the atmosphere. The plan is to collide with this membrane at Mach 7, another concussive shock to the payload.

[@chriswright9096]

@@tonyhawk123 Inside the spinner, the nose and tail of the projectile are never travelling in the same direction (always at a tangent to the circumference....nose and tail being on different points of the circumference). The tumbling is a result of this. You can't just release it.

[@pbxn-3rdx-85percent]

I believe their big spinner is what I need to separate bits of french fries from used frying oil. Edible oil recycling is big business too you know. It may not have the glamour of high tech space industry but almost everybody likes fried food and you can't fry without cooking oil. 😁

[@pforce9]

You blew right past the part about these guys flinging a heavy counterweight downward into the ground beneath their feet at Mach 7. That sound pretty Wiley Coyote to me.

[@TexMex421]

They blew past it too. They did not include it in any of their designs.

[@arwo1143]

About the release problem I saw a video couple days ago where the SL CEO said they intend to release a counterweight, not at the same time, but half a rotation later and yet it out the main exit way He said their bearings can withstand half a rotation with that much weight difference

[@tjakal]

Having every part of a payload rated to withstand 10000G is what I can't wrap my head around. The engineering marvel of that seems magnitudes beyond the launcher itself.

[@bradleyrex2968]

WWII artillery shells had electronics in them. 40K Gs. With vacuum tubes.

[@adlerhut4397]

Yeah this is my concern as well. I assume the payload will be at 10kG for a significant amount of time too while ramping up.

[@TheEulerID]

@@bradleyrex2968 They only suffered that acceleration rate for a very small fraction of a second. The SpinLaunch projectiles are going to have to tolerate a gradually increasing loading up to that 10,000 g max for 30 minutes or more, and it will be close to that maximum for a minute or more as it approaches release. Also, the load it lateral, it will then suddenly be released when it will then hit the atmosphere and decelerate along the flight path before the rocket kicks in at altitude and it accelerates along the flight path. Also, this is not a simple single-purpose device like a WW II proximity fuse, but a complex working rocket and a working payload which will likely contain a great deal of complex electronics and even mechanical systems. It's already tough enough for satellite designers to build them to withstand the vibrations and acceleration of a conventional rocket, which are a tiny fraction of what will be required for a SpinLaunch trip to orbit. All that engineering work requires money and testing (how many 10,000g test facilities are there). it would have to be repeated for different satellite designs too. Something of an engineering challenge and I would suggest that the g-forces involved will make the solution unsuitable for a lot of purposes. Starting, of course, with anything involving humans.

[@rayoflight62]

The problem of Spinlaunch is that the system is not fault-tolerant, and there are too many opportunities for failures since the very tight timings, from payload release to system of exit gates that allows the payload to exit the centrifuge while preserving the vacuum inside it. I would have done it differently, with an half-mile long monorail and the payload attached to a gondola with a linear motor, accelerating on the monorail. And doing without the vacuum - I consider it an unmanageable criticality. Thank you Dr. Miles, for your analysis of the Spinlaunch system...

[@rayoflight62]

I forgot to mention, 10,000 g is the same acceleration of an artillery shell leaving the muzzle. While there are established engineering techniques for ruggedized electronics, I struggle to imagine how the rocket motor of 2nd stage, with its plumbing and fuel valves / tanks - can operate properly after a 10k g pulse...

[@commonsenseskeptic]

It’s pretty simple - this concept is another example of too much money in the hands of people who don’t deserve it. Sure, you can hurtle this projectile through the membrane. It’s tumbling, but that won’t matter for long since as soon as the projectile hits the atmosphere at the stated speed it’s going to melt down due to friction. There’s a bunch of problems with the concept, most of which were addressed nicely by Thunderf00t within days of this “demonstration”. The question we have is, why would you be promoting such obvious nonsense?

[@gutza1782]

Exactly, just build a space gun - with that, the projectile will only be experiencing high Gs in compression for a fraction of a second, while with SpinLaunch the projectile will be experiencing those same Gs in shear for over an hour.

[@gutza1782]

@timemachine_194 So why not just build a railgun to launch payloads? Then, the projectile will only be subjected to massive Gs for a fraction of a second instead of over an hour, and in compression instead of shear. I'm studying materials science and let me tell you, many structural materials commonly used in aerospace are weak to shear stress - that's how metals fail.

[@commonsenseskeptic]

@timemachine_194 Solve the tumbling of the projectile and get back to us.

[@tonyhawk123]

@timemachine_194 while the person you replied to didnt especially deserve your time investment (flippant brat syndrome) just know theres others who appreciated your effort to explain.

[@DeputyNordburg]

I know these people, and they are dicks. They park in handicapped spaces at the mall. They do not deserve this money

[@Matt1979321]

This has aged pretty well, I think A year on and you aren't wrong yet, well done.

[@B33t_R007]

they where actually pretty busy for a while with the prototype. it's been quiet for a while though, i understand they are looking for a place to build the "big one". i've seen an update video a few days ago. all-in-all, it doesn't look particularly good for the future, but it might not be over yet.

[@Rarius]

The fact that the payload didn't exit straight wasn't because of a mistiming, but because the payload is spinning end over end at 450rpm as it is released... this accounts for the tumbling too. This is an unavoidable problem with this concept. The other problem is that once the payload leaves, you get an air cannon effect down the exit tube. Going from vacuum to one atmosphere in a split second will also shock the entire system and release an enormous amount of energy.

[@DeputyNordburg]

I can think of a variety of ways to correct the spin of the projectile including just releasing the front before releasing the back. A little basic geometry will show they must have done something to correct the spin, or the projectile would have left the tower at about 90 degrees. An air cannon effect sounds scary, but they seem well aware the projectile will encounter air, and have this streamlined the craft. Heating due to air resistance is likely to be a problem. The first meter of air will not effect the projectile any more than the second or third.

[@tallekberg2435]

@@DeputyNordburg No matter how you do it, essentially, you're taking a rocket that's spinning end over end at what is expected to be 450 rpms, or 7.5 times a second, down to zero in less than a millisecond. Let alone what this would do to a payload.

[@DeputyNordburg]

@@tallekberg2435 No matter how? How about if If the rocket mount spins (at 450rpm in the opposite direction or 7.5 times a second, or...... 27000 times an hour)? In the test video the projectile departs at about 5 degrees off it's trajectory, but has travelled about the distance necessary to rotate 90 degrees were it still attached to the launcher. So they have corrected 85 of 90 degrees of the problem somehow. I doubt it is via rotating the mount the entire time, but it seems like they are aware of the issue wouldn't you say?

[@tallekberg2435]

@@DeputyNordburg Right, the rocket would somehow need to be kept pointing in the direction of launch during rotation as it's being released. The current design is at best impossible and at worst, fraudulent.

[@darkjudge8786]

Everything you just said is untrue. You are a liar and a fraud

[@saumyacow4435]

I think that the bearing shock issue is the hardest technical challenge. And if you solve it by simultaneous release of a counter-weight then you need to absorb Gigajoules of energy. Think tonnes of TNT. And whatever can do that will cost a lot of money.

[@wkinne1]

This will be a game changer on the moon. No vacuum pumps or container required. This will allow mined ore from the moon to be thrown into moon orbit at very little cost. With the very low Mars atmosphere, this may be very doable there too.

[@aluisious]

On the moon you could launch ore easily with a pneumatic gun. No matter how you slice it, this idea is stupid.

[@wkinne1]

@@aluisious Not much air on the Moon for pneumatic launches, would be very costly to throw that much air/gas into space.

[@TexMex421]

@@aluisious Yes, just use all that extra air you find laying around on the moon to blast it into space pnumatically.

[@alex36265503]

@@TexMex421 you can actually generate gas from rocks. If the gas is nos nitrogen nor oxygen, you may even WANT to get rid of them

[@TexMex421]

@@alex36265503 Me personally? I generate gas, but not from rocks.

[@markowitzen]

Somewhat of a late arrival but I'm kind of skeptical about how scalable this system will be in the future. I think eventually what will be driving cost economics on the efficiency of launches will have a lot to do with how big you can make a rocket and how much you can optimize the fuel load versus the thrust generated - through things like engine improvements, new fuel mixtures, etc. While their proposed mechanism may cut down on the costs of each launch and electricity will probably be easier to come by than fuel in terms of generating sufficient propulsion for smaller launch vehicles, I doubt they will be able to easily launch larger systems and still realize the same economic benefits that their chemical rocket peers will. In what will likely be the mid-term future this has the potential to create a technological dead end that will be difficult to surmount. At the moment reusable chemical rockets that can more easily scale up and benefit from that seem to have an advantage in that regard.

[@judsonstephens2996]

If anything, the launch industry has been going smaller, not bigger. Satellites are getting lighter and lighter and large launchers aren't necessary for almost any payload. SpaceX is trying to develop an ultra large launcher, but that's driven by a desire to go to Mars, trying to market it as a cheap high volume system is just them trying to make some profit in the process. But they're trying to create a new market, not capitalize on a market that already exists.

[@nomercy4521]

Would they need to launch larger systems though? If there's a market for launching smaller payloads, then they might be able to corner the market there. There's definitely a huge cost gap between traditional rocket and spin launch, in theory.

[@spiffer27]

The reason for the apparent lateral movement as the projectile emerges through the membrane at 4:12 is that it hasn't lost its angular momentum. It is still spinning even though its centre of mass is travelling along a straight trajectory. If your spinning it at 3 revolutions per second then let go of it, it is still spinning at 3 revolutions per second as it emerges from the launch tube.

[@CobusLaubscher]

Yea, I think the hardest thing would be to cancel this anglar momentum, I don't really see a easy way of doing this?

[@spiffer27]

@@CobusLaubscher Since writing the above I have thought of a way of countering the angular momentum (possibly). If the projectile has two release catches, one ahead and the other behind the centre of mass, The forward catch could be released momentarily before the rear one. The Centre of mass of the projectile would then travel tangentially to the arc of the spinner whilst the rear catch would continue to rotate about the axis of the spinner. The release timing would have to be precise or, if the rear catch is released too soon the projectile would continue to spin in the same direction as the spinner but at a lower angular velocity or if released too late it would rotate in the opposite direction. I still think the whole idea is one that will only work in the movies though! Perhaps it could work on the moon where there is no atmosphere.

[@DeputyNordburg]

The missile is a few degrees off traveling in a straight line, but if the rotation had not been significantly reduced, it would have rotated about 90 degrees since being released. Obviously something has been done, and it was less than perfect. More recent launches seem to have less wobble.

[@spiffer27]

@@DeputyNordburg It depends how far that membrane was from the release point and how far the release catch was ahead of or behind the centre of mass of the projectile. Obviously...

[@DeputyNordburg]

@@spiffer27 Yes it depends on the distance from the release point, but as the release point is tangential to the rotation it's obvious where the release point was. Its where the straight launch shaft departs from the circular spin area. There is obviously more than one "release catch" as well.

[@adder2204]

Just a thought, the counterweight is essentially a motor magnet, turning the outer diameter of the facility into a motor, then as the payload releases, the magnet end gets released down a tube being controlled to a stop by electromagnets. You will have far less stresses at the centre of the arm as it is being driven from the outside. The centre bearing could also be a magnetic bearing reducing friction in the middle, without gears and traditional bearings everything will run smoother and potentially faster also.

[@Pseud0nymTXT]

from what I heard their final idea is that the counterweight would be another launch vehicle launched a few ms later

[@adder2204]

@@Pseud0nymTXT Except even that unbalanced half a rotation, over and over again will course a lot of stresses. When I first saw the shape, I assumed the motor was on the outside. It seems rather strange to have gears and motors in the middle.

[@TheEulerID]

That released counterweight will have a massive amount of kinetic energy. Basically, just under 3 MJ per kilogramme. Given the proposed mass of the payload, and that this will include a 2 stage rocket plus fuel to get to orbital velocity, which means going from 2.4 to 7.8 kilometres per second, then I can't see it having a mass of less than a few tonnes (and it's a bit worse, as there's also some gravitational potential energy to be gained). As it's almost 3 GJ of kinetic energy per tonne, then that's a lot. The kinetic energy in a 16" shell from an Iowa class battleship was "only" about 355 MJ (for the heavy shell). If that counterweight has to be several tonnes, then that's absorbing the kinetic energy of several tens of 16" naval armour piercing shells. Put another way, a 1.2 tonne counterweight would have the same momentum as the 10,000 kg "Grand Slam" bomb used in WW II, and those things could penetrate 4.5 metres of reinforced concrete or tens of metres of earth. With SpinLaunch it's going to have to absorb that much momentum and kinetic energy over and over again without doing serious damage. On a more general point, do we actually want to encourage the launch of ever larger numbers of small satellites? Very large numbers of small satellites are inherently difficult to rack and control and there will be more failures. Has nobody heard of the Kessler Syndrome, whereby collisions in low Earth orbit generate a sort of chain-reaction leaving the sector entirely unusable?

[@SECONDQUEST]

The material science aspect has been solved according to spinlaunch. Small sats are easy to deorbit. Regardless of what size of satellite we use more we will NEED something to clean up our area of space. Kessler syndrome is not really something we're worried about if we can choreograph the dance of satellites. No matter how many, if done correctly they all miss each other. We're worried about Kessler syndrome because of accidents, collisions in space, that then create and issue.

[@leechowning2712]

If we were going to do this, entirely ignoring the fact that it's ridiculous, why in the heck would we build it on the coast. Unlike a rocket which can simply be scaled up as large as necessary, a kinetic launch platform has to start with enough speed to achieve launch. Even if it does afterwards start the engine it's still a question of having enough fuel in the form of energy. If I was going to build this I would want as high of a starting position as I can get because even a couple thousand feet dramatically change air pressure. If this launch platform was built in the Sierra Nevada's or Rocky mountains dramatically less air pressure and air resistance would be encountered.

[@PDVism]

There you go again, using common sense and logic. ;)

[@TheEulerID]

It will be on the coast over the ocean just in case something goes wrong. For instance, if the rocket doesn't fire, then you don't want what will be a ballistic missile hitting a populated area when it comes down.

[@leechowning2712]

@@TheEulerID I live in colorado. If it was aimed northward, it would hit the canada border before crossing a single town. The same for several other parts of the country.

[@TheEulerID]

@@leechowning2712 the vast majority of satellite launches are roughly in an easterly direction as that way they get the benefit of the Earth's rotation (up to 1,000 mph at the equator). Hence launch sites on the east coast as close to the equator as is possible makes the most sense. Just look at the location of Cape Canaveral Launch Complex and the Kennedy Space Center Launch Complex, both in Florida. There is also the South Texas Launch Facility, under construction, very close to the Mexican border, which will launch out across the Gulf of Mexico. The European Space Agency (ESA) has its launch facility in French Guiana, which is on the East Coast of South America, and launches out across the Atlantic. The Russians don't have a suitable easterly coast line far enough south to gain from the "slingshot" effect of the Earth's rotation, so their launch site is in Baikonur Cosmodrome, which is in the middle of Kazakhstan, which is very thinly populated but rather more northerly than is ideal (at about 45 degrees). The factors that make launching out to the east over ocean and reasonably close to the equator apply equally to SpinLaunch. All other things being equal, then that's the obvious choice. Launch out roughly easterly over the ocean if you have access to it. nb. SpinLaunch by it's very nature can only really hurl projectiles in a fixed direction, and that will most definitely be to the East as that's the predominate direction of launching of satellites. Any deviation from that will be via the two stage rocket portion and the slingshot part simply can't be re-directed. No way will it be pointed to go north.

[@reidbronson6358]

Enjoyed the video. This reminds of a movie I saw some 20 plus years ago about a scientist named Bull, I believe. I know, weird name. He headed a project for Canada to launch satellites by a huge gun. Supposedly, all his life he was fascinated by Germany's WW 1 Paris Gun and Hitler's WW 2 Vengence 3 weapon, the London Gun. Apparently, he was out of a job when Canada killed the satellite project. Long before the initial Gulf War, supposedly Sadam learned about this scientist and hired him to produce a Jerusalem Gun. This would allow Iraq to decimate Israel without risking a single Iraqi Air Force Jet and Pilot. In the arms industry, everyone believed Dr. Bull could easily give Sadam the Jerusalem Gun. Well, while working on the Jerusalem Gun, Mossad learned of the project and Dr. Bull's leadership. Dr. Bull was assassinated by the Mossad in a European Hotel. Without his knowledge and leadership the Jerusalem Gun project died with Dr. Bull. I kinda wish Canada continued to fund Dr. Bull's project to send satellites into space in a nontraditional way. Maybe Dr. Bull was a couple of decades ahead of the necessary technology. Sir, do you of anyone trying the "cannon metod" today to launch satellites? I hope this spin project works. From your comments, they may require more time to perfect the technology. If this project does succeed, I would like to see the cannon method be given a chance. I like the idea that the science behind the Paris Gun, the London Gun, and the Jerusalem Gun is finally employed in a peaceful purpose rather than the original intended lethal purpose. Just seems like good Karma. Your thoughts please, Sir. New Subscriber.

[@lanceanthony198]

Kinetic launch systems like this only seem practical off of earth. And rail gun mass drivers seem like a better option. The only benefit I can see of this rotating arm is space saving, where instead of building a longer track for acceleration, you just loop around the short track for a longer time.

[@NoBaconForYou]

Unless they are too expensive, i see spinlaunchers outcompeting railed mass drivers for lunar processing facilities. At least, i would probably want a spinlauncher over a rail gun, especially with the developments we will see them and future competition make in the technology. I believe that even now, they could launch smallsats for a comparable rate to a falcon 9, all while using grid power instead of internal combustion. On a fossil fuel powered grid, spin launch is actually less efficient use of fuel than a rocket. SpinLaunch and other electric kinetic launchers only make sense if you have a renewable or partially renewable (nuclear) grid. I can't wait to see the full scale system. I'm fully convinced of the viability of this technology, but I definitely agree it will be most useful on moon, Mars, and other bodies with less gravity (so not Venus). I actually think a spinlauncher is easier to develop than a rail gun method. They used all off the shelf parts for the motors and bearings and stuff, rail gun tech is highly regulated, i would assume. Each has its own challenges, but I think we should pursue all technological developments that we can.

[@NoBaconForYou]

Watch the Real Engineering video for more up to date information and interviews with the developers creating this interesting technology. I imagine the fully developed version of SpinLaunch will launch two payloads (in one spin) to negate the need for a counterbalance and increase profit and launch cadence.

[@NoBaconForYou]

If you launch two payloads, you only have to worry about bearing shock for half a revolution, which would pass in a small fraction of a second

[@therealspeedwagon1451]

I think Spinlaunch is great for the moon but definitely not earth. There’s just too much atmosphere and very high gravity for it to work. I think a railgun system coupled with some kind of spinning orbital skyhook would work the best for a low to near zero propellant launch system.

[@gregoryclifford6938]

How do you turn it vertical? On the Moon or in orbit you could launch the Queen Mary to Mars that way, but from Earth, where do you find a smokestack tall enough?

[@jaytc3218]

Thunderf00t did a 2-part video about why this thing is a load of nonsense. There's a lot of these overhyped projects that ultimately go nowhere. Elio, the three-wheeled car; Aptera, another three-wheeled car; Musk's Hyperloop, California's high-speed rail program, hydrogen-powered planes, commercial heavy-lift airships, etc. It's a bunch of rich people throwing money into stuff that "looks" promising but in reality is doomed to failure. These people don't do it for innovation. They don't give a sh!t if it succeeds or not. They do it because it's a tax write-off.

[@iuriiberlach5733]

Many thanks! Your arguments are absolutely to the point!

[@roderick.t]

Those renders will work perfectly until the real physics kicks in. 😂

[@SENKRECHTSTARTER]

Just found your Channel. like your moderation style and speed. Keep up the good work

[@jackmcslay]

An interesting potential solution to the bearing shock I've heard is to have 2 payloads, so the system has to withstand the bearing shock for only a fraction of a second it takes for the second payload get in position

[@RobertLeeAtYT]

Probably a sweet spot is the launch of bulk consumables: gases, water, fuel, etc. No problem with the payload having to withstand 10k G for hours on end for the spin up.

[@therealspeedwagon1451]

Yeah this is in no way going to launch humans. But for materials for building a space station or for food and water which astronauts need it could definitely work.

[@VFella]

@@therealspeedwagon1451 Exactly my thoughts. Humans go with a big SpaceX capsule and these catapults provide all the stuff for building a space station or a space ship to Mars!!

[@therealspeedwagon1451]

@@VFella although with SpaceX you still have the same problem with the rocket equation. I think a better alternative for human travel would be high speed mass drivers and catapult launchers similar to those used on aircraft carriers. That along with an orbital spinning skyhook

[@michaelhill6451]

Definitely overhyped. "Spin Launch" has stated that with their huge 100m diameter facility they want to get their projectile up to a muzzle velocity of 6,900 fps. In the 1960s, the High Altitude Research Project got a 960 lb projectile up to a muzzle velocity of 7,000 fps and achieved an altitude of 180 km. Unfortunately the funding for HARP was pulled due to the Vietnam War. HARP pretty much already achieved the stated goals of "Spin Launch" by welding two naval guns together to produce a barrel that was 120 feet long. It is smaller, simpler, and the peak G-load is experienced for a fraction of a second versus hours for "Spin Launch". HARP also didn't require a massive vacuum chamber, precise release timing, counterweights, etc., This is just about the least practical way I can think of trying to launch something into orbit.

[@TheOwlman]

If it was such a brilliant test why did they blur all the screens containing any telemetry? I seriously doubt anyone is going to try to steal this concept, it is what you get when someone with no engineering experience decides to _disrupt_ rocket launch technology. Also known as the Theranos effect.

[@PowerScissor]

Imagine how easy it would be to copy the tech if we saw the telemetry.

[@TheOwlman]

@@PowerScissor I still want to know what they are going to do about the outward vector - if you watch the video as it emerges from the launch tube it definitely failed to stay central, so accelerating it to something that can achieve anything like a reasonable altitude is going to make hit the wall. Hard.

[@stephencraimer1461]

Its aerospace, all information is default classified, I assume this video was checked before release to avoid prosecution under Title 18 of the U.S. Code, Section 798. Typically every number and most text is obliterated.

[@TheOwlman]

@@stephencraimer1461 How does that apply to a private company not working under government contract?

[@stephencraimer1461]

@@TheOwlman The same way that a private company cannot sell or export, a weapon or detail a potential weapon without permission, and I think planes have been used as weapons. :-)

[@patclements3067]

I like how your next video “capturing space debris” follows a video about launching space debris.

[@detectivetrailer5546]

If its possible, i was wondering if you could make a video explaining about why materials break. like an in-depth video on why materials break and how can we make something super strong. also, is it possible to make something that absorbs energy. would love to hear your thoughts.

[@DrBenMiles]

Let me take a look. If I remember right, one of my very early subscribers did his PhD in exactly this

[@john-alanpascoe5848]

@@DrBenMiles You are remembering correctly :) Why materials break is different for different kinds of materials and depends on how you load them (and if you dig down far enough is not fully understood). Ultimately it comes down to seperating the atoms or molecules far enough that the intermolecular forces no longer hold them together. Absorbing energy definitely can be done, and again there are different ways of doing it. Crash structures in your car doing it by plastically deforming metal, which means the metal is permanently deformed and in the process of deforming turns the kinetic energy of the crash into heat.

[@detectivetrailer5546]

@@john-alanpascoe5848 im sorry my reply was late. I was waiting for this, but i did not get a notification saying anyone replied, so i just did not check the comment section again until now. thank you for the reply Mr. John-Alan. i have another question tho, i want to search about this topic on the internet, what are the keywords that will get me to information like this?

[@john-alanpascoe5848]

@@detectivetrailer5546 No problem, glad my reply was helpful. You can look for keywords such as 'material strength' / ' strength of materials', or 'fracture toughness'. Mark Miodownik also has some good explanations in his book 'Stuff Matters'

[@detectivetrailer5546]

@@john-alanpascoe5848 thank you very much. i will look into those.

[@yashgodara2567]

Good critic, if they work on all the points you mentioned, no one can stop them from making the most economical satellite launching system in history of aviation

[@ujjwalkumar-uf8nj]

How will they tackle the stress and strain on the internal components due to high RPM rotation? and their object will be traveling at pretty high speed from the beginning immediately facing atmospheric resistance and possibly huge amount of heat build up how will they tackle that? Normal rockets start slow and incrementally build speed but at the same time the atmospheric density decreases.

[@sisterfixit4017]

They create a vacuum inside. No drag and no heat.

[@11moonshot]

@timemachine_194 But one major issue remains: Without any means of orientation control this catapult is not better than its ancient Roman predecessor!

[@GetMoGaming]

You now have a rare subscriber. I'm subbed to like 4 channels.

[@bills6093]

What about the impact of the rocket on the atmosphere? When it leaves the vacuum it is going to hit a wall of air. Won't that be sort of like a physical barrier? Also note that in the demo video, it doesn't appear that there is a vacuum in the chamber when the rocket breaks the seal.

[@chriswright9096]

Correct. The test setup has very few of the features they claim for their invention. No reduced air pressure, no opposite counterweight simultaneously released, no means to prevent tumbling (see my earlier comment). Nothing to see here.

[@leechowning2712]

The barrier explodes outward rather than inward... Not to mention the sound as the turbine spins up... Suggests that it was not in even a low pressure environment.

[@angadsingh9314]

@@leechowning2712 The barrier explodes outwards because a fucking rocket just went through it lmfaoao

[@leechowning2712]

@@angadsingh9314 you've never worked with a vacuum before have you? If it was even a 50% vacuum that is literally thousands of pounds of air pressure going in.

[@angadsingh9314]

@@leechowning2712 Thousands of pounds of air pressure?? How do you figure? The pressure gradient is one bar.

[@Argosh]

I was always under the assumption, that a high speed exit from vacuum into atmosphere was the biggest issue. If this no longer holds I wonder when we're seeing "simple" vacuum tube linear accelerators.

[@briandeeley1599]

I think a space elevator is still a better idea but a vacuum tube that reaches the vacuum of space would still be a better idea too. Make the tube out of the lightest and strongest material and keep it erect with a chain of balloons attached its length up to 80 thousand feet. also the interior of the tube could have a magnetic rail-type of system for acceleration like a maglev train.

[@MikeKleinsteuber]

It's total and utter bollocks, if not a straight up and down scam

[@mitchellminer9597]

There are amateur engineers that build pumpkin throwers, just for the fun of it. They call it "punkin chunkin" and they have a mad variety of designs - air cannons, giant slingshots, trebuchets - that they divide into classes. They even have centrifugal-arm launchers that whip around and around and release at just the right moment. I'm saying that the concept of SpinLaunch is so widely known that even pumpkin-chuckers know it and work at it. But in the happily mad world of pumpkin propelling, the spin-launchers are the crazy people with the thrashing machines that don't win the contests. The spin-launch concept is known. The technical obstacles are incredibly difficult. The laws of physics still require a rocket.

[@schrodingcheshirecat]

I imagined mile-plus long rail-gun launchers that rests on mountain slopes, especially for return payloads from our moon, mars or gas giant moons some 30 odd years ago. would use plasma 'shield' to protect from heat. can't carry that type of mechanism on limited sized rockets. but from the ground, size isn't an issue. lightning, for example creates a several mile long temporary vacuum in the sky. or imagine an ablative cone or funnel that travels just in front of the payload (rocket) that disperses atmosphere out of the path, just enough. as just mentioned, the ablative portion, normally extra weight for a normal rocket is no longer an issue.

[@Seth-Halo]

For Earth, if using strictly a mass driver to get to space and you wanted to launch humans with it, it would have to be about 600 miles long. It could be shorter if you where using it as launch assist though. And if you where not going to use it for people just lightweight things I imagine it would be much shorter.

[@schrodingcheshirecat]

@@Seth-Halo I pictured between 11 and 40 miles depending on payload. mostly the idea was packing mined ore and resources into shells, launched and assisted into orbits resembling a train of sorts.

[@SECONDQUEST]

@@Seth-Halo we're never launching humans by mass driver. That's not the goal. By the time mass drivers can be utilized for human safe objects we will have more efficient and useful launchers

[@charanbasireddy]

Great to see this viedo , Glad you included the mechanical and shocks wave effects

[@koczisek]

In this config the vehicle revolves with same speed as the rotating arm at the moment of release - that's these 180rpm. You gotta cancel it out or it will just tumble. Depending on the vehicle's mass and its distribution around the rotation axis, its angular momentum will differ, but we can assume it's significant. If it must must be canceled in a matter of milliseconds, it'll require an enormous torque!

[@chriswright9096]

Right! Dr Ben misses this completely. The tumbling observed on the test launch is inherent in the design. The way I look at it; the nose and tail of the projectile are at different points on the circumference of the circle...and they both move at a tangent. In other words the nose and tail are always moving in different directions. Hence the tumbling upon release. Another problem he does not address is the impact with the barrier that maintains low air pressure within the chamber. Substantial enough to do that job, but weak enough to allow the projectile through without damaging it? I don't think so. Of course, the air beyond the barrier is also a 'wall' of sorts. The awarding of patents is very concerning. Even though these guys will be unable to make this work, the patents can still be used to prevent others from pursuing interesting ideas in the future (or to extract payments from them). I've seen this in my own industry. The patent industry needs a major overhaul.

[@koczisek]

​@@chriswright9096 There's much easier way of explaining the tumbling - up until it's finally released, the vehicle is latched to the arm, so just makes a whole with it. If you start revolving it, then each part of the thing has same angular speed as any other part and the whole, no matter where's the rotational axis. Obviously the axis is chosen to maximize the vehicle's linear speed - it's at one end of the arm, while the vehicle at the other end, but vehicle's angular speed is same as if it were at the axis. Now, your way of looking at it starts to make difference when cancelation of the vehicle's angular speed is eventually attempted. So e.g. if it would sit at a bearing, then you'd have to start spinning it (relatively to the arm) in the other direction everything's spinning, until you'd see from your observation point, that the vehicle stays in same angular position. That would just happen when you turned it with same angular speed as the arm is spinning, in the other direction. But: there's no bearing (it can't be), it's apparently NEVER even attempted! In this device, cancellation of vehicle's angular speed could be only done with a high pressure piston, explosives, or some clever 2-point release mechanism, with absolutely perfect precision and timing of unlatching moments.

[@DeputyNordburg]

@@koczisek The vehicle doesn't tumble, it wobbles a little. If you look at the distance from the release point to the place where it punctures the membrane the distance is about the same as 1/4 turn around the spin chamber. So if they had done nothing to arrest the spin, it would be at a 90 degree angle. They have recently launched to 80,000 feet with onboard camera and electronics.

[@koczisek]

@@DeputyNordburg Good point! I'd say it's even a bit longer. This would mean that they in fact do something to cancel the momentum, but what? I haven't seen anything that would explain this. You mean that test on 28th of April? The problem is that 80'000 feet is ~27km, so in the middle of Stratosphere, looong way before it could be actually named a suborbital flight. Is it because of max energy or other tech problems?

[@DeputyNordburg]

@@koczisek So the problem is their 8th launch ever in their 1/3 scale prototype launcher was not as high as they plan to go when they are doing commercial service? If they can't be perfect at first they should give up?

[@darwinlong8012]

While I can see the utility of a kinetic based launch system, what I have some serious problems with is the 10,000 G's (their figures, not mine) that this device puts on any payload it launches. I can't imagine ANY useful payload that could withstand such a force unless it was a raw material that would be used in space to build something useful.

[@abhinavbhati5159]

Well explained Dr Ben 🤩🤩 but I think there will be one another problem of 'inertia of direction' especially at some heavy payload

[@detectivetrailer5546]

hello Dr Ben, i just wanted you to know that i really enjoyed the video. i am surprised that you dont have more views. I hope that this will change in the near future. also i am new to this channel and kinda worried that i did not come across you videos bfr. once again, thanks for the video. really appreciate it.

[@DrBenMiles]

Hey! Thanks, great to have you here! 👍

[@SimonAmazingClarke]

Excellent review of an interesting idea. I'm all for inovation. Designing a cube sat that can withstand 10,000 G is going to be interesting, and will greatly increase the weight of the satellite. Then it has to be able to take deceleration 90 degrees out. The biggest problem I see currently is, at the point of release, won't it just go out of the side of the building.

[@nomercy4521]

We'll see, they say that the parts have been more robust than they have expected, traditional satellite parts. I forgot the part they were testing, but they have a g tester and the part just bent ever so slightly. So they are reporting that it's been a lot easier solving the issue than expected.

[@TheEulerID]

"won't it just go out of the side of the building". No, it will continue on a tangential path. It's like releasing a slingshot. I should add that this assumes that the release is absolutely "clean" and instantaneous. If it even slightly snags then the projectile will tumble and also not follow that nice clear tangential path.

[@russell2952]

I like how you refer to their 'renders' rather than their 'designs'. That is, after all, what they're selling. It's disingenuous to compare this to existing launch systems because those systems actually have been proven to work and their launch costs are known.

[@TheDwightMamba]

they have made a 1/3 scale for testing.

[@CandC68]

Two things: 1- Years ago Space Research in northern VT or NH was testing super artillery designs for the military. Their guns were reported to fire projectiles into near sub orbital altitudes. 2- Germany in WWII had a weapon design that was purported to be able to reach England. The concept was a very long "barrel" that had sequential propellant charges that fired as the projectile passed that point in the barrel. I imagine rail guns are the modern type of that concept. Both these systems might be able to get a projectile into orbit, or high enough to have booster rockets for the last kick. BUT, what satellite can survive the G forces of such a launch? Another consideration is that a powered vehicle already in orbit, could "grab" a projectile at it apogee. Window for error = zero. Regarding the spin launch facility. In the event of a miss- timed release, the facility should be designed of modular perimeter sections that would break and be replaced should something happen. The damage from a failed release should be predictable. All this is fun to imagine.

[@kunjukunjunil1481]

Why can't they directly go for a 'Railgun ' so that they could simply avoid many of the listed problems (like timing and bearing shock etc) but it won't solve the g-force and heating problem though.

[@PowerScissor]

If they did it in a vacuum, they would avoid the heating. I would think they'd need a few miles of railgun if they wanted to ramp up speed though. I would be curious how sensitive electronics payloads would deal with the magnetic fields involved with a railgun of that magnitude.

[@grumpysanta6318]

@@PowerScissor Only until it hits the air, then massive heating.

[@90enemies]

Railgun? Bro, just revive the damn HARP project again. Don't need no fancy railgun. A Conventional 16 Inch artillery is all you need.

[@deildegast]

That would be Project HARP (Barbados) with other cannons.

[@MichaelOxlongerThanYours]

Technology wise railguns are much further away and much less feasible than what spin launch is doing. For example we still dont have functioning railguns "small" enough to fit on a ship. Now they would not only have to finish developing railgun technology but also scale it up many many times to achieve a similar payload capability.

[@williamrbuchanan4153]

Now there’s a guy with the consultancy ability for you. It’s a dangerous toy to play about with . Well,said heat logic and knowledge explained. Think you for that video.

[@UnexpectedBooks]

A key value proposition of small sats is low cost. However, SpinLaunch pushes more cost into designing for high G forces. It makes great sense for SpinLaunch to provide a library of tested common components. But every satellite will have its domain specific electronics that must take high G. into consideration. Certainly worth pursuing, but the economics distorts a bit.

[@DrBenMiles]

Absolutely, great point. Thanks for the comment. I may come down to a balancing act of lower launch cost against bespoke components and increased design time. I couldn't find much information talking to there points

[@diGritz1]

Distorts even more when you add the fact that there are already vendors that can provide a library of high G-hardened components. Military defense contractors have been making electronic components for artillery rounds capable of surviving 15,000 Gs for over a decade. Though it's possible SpinLaunch could take advantage of this and forgo at least some of their testing.

[@vornamenachname2625]

@@diGritz1 "Military defense contractors have been making electronic components for artillery rounds capable of surviving 15,000 Gs for over a decade." Not realy. The components surviving 15000 Gs for some microseconds.

[@warezhcka]

The use of airgel as a buffer (will protect the fragile parts of the structure from damage) to compensate for the destructive force of acceleration and large overloads.

[@DataGeek903]

@@diGritz1 a solid state component withstanding 15,000G is not the same as a rocket engine and associated fuel tank withstanding 15,000G for an hour.

[@dwightelvey645]

There are two issues I'd like to see dealt with. There are 2 g forces involved. One is the outwards force of the centrifuge. That is the easier part of the problem. The projectile is also rotating. It is rotating at the same speed as the center shaft. In order to launch straight, you have to stop the rotation of the projectile about its center. You'll notice how the first launch came out at an angle. That wasn't just a timing problem. Rotational energy stored in the projectile is quite large. Without using a calculator, I suspect the projectile loses 1/4 to 1/2 it linear energy getting the thing to fly straight. If one tried to remove the rotational energy at the end of the arm as it is released, it would likely break the projectile, assuming a uniform construction as the pictures show.

[@bighaverlegend33]

I’m still questioning it, wouldn’t a rail launcher system be more effective like the mass driver from Ace Combat 7 but on the side of a mountain

[@WetPig]

There should definitely be a start-up for that.

[@ReasonMakes]

You need a lot of delta V to go to orbit. Cannons have been tried in the past but I believe the problem is they have the problem of needing to accelerate very quickly. That creates problems for the payload integrity and for power use. But I'm not a huge expert. I guarantee they've thought of this before though lol

[@scottstewart9154]

I like at the end you just touched on the fact the satellites and launch vehicles have to withstand 10K Gs

[@cg21]

I know it would be a lot larger but a linear accelerator up a mountain seems so much more feasible.

[@Xen_the_legend]

At the same time it would have way more points of failure

[@jongeduard]

Ah I see this video is a bit older now - great though, still with a lot of very correct information, but also some points that turn out to be not that much a huge issue. Today I saw another video from just view days ago (6 August 2022) from a channel called "Real Engineering" in which they explain as much as possible in a lot of detail. It's an amazing project and yes it's totally real (the physics and the tech are both explained very well in that video). Main goal is to replace the entire first launch stage of the rocket, bringing the payload to about 70 km altitude with a final velocity at that altitude about 2 km/sec (not yet the orbital 8 km/s, but that's because that's always the job for the 2nd stage of any rocket/spacecraft). In other words: to get through the dense lower atmosphere so fast that it's extremely efficient. That high speed also makes the duration of atmospheric drag & heat development very short. The temperature of projectile cone indeed rises very quickly, but does not get the time to reach a super high maximum. Time is really the key to the solution. All explained in that same video, also the factor of density (using a massive projectile with a very small diameter) when it comes to the temperature development. 5:00 I believe they will do really _everything_ to prevent any accident like that, I mean that the projectile escapes the wrong way or so. Because that specific thing is so important that it will get biggest priority. Remember: Every new, innovative idea, ALWAYS gets a lot of scepticism, also when that's without valid reasons.

[@apartofthewhole6639]

This idea isn't new, it's infantile lol

[@jongeduard]

@@apartofthewhole6639 Nah, I get it, the basic principles (throwing, centrifuge) are not really the new idea, but the combination of solutions to make it actually possible, including the choices of the materials and the construction, etc., kinda are still a new idea. And also the idea that it could actually make space flight eventually less expensive and wasteful.

[@hans-joachimbierwirth4727]

You misspelled incorrect. This video is full of shit.

[@iplanes1]

You mention it towards the end but my rough calculation tells me that a spinner with a 35 m arm rotating at 450 rpm will subject whatever is at the end of the arm to centripetal acceleration of roughly 7500g. This is equivalent to crashing a car travelling at around 100 mph into a very solid object. It may be possible to engineer things to withstand this but the lightweight structure shown in the video would not handle it. I thus ask - would not the extra strength required mean such a huge increase in structural weight that the payload would become very small.

[@collinscody57]

There is a big difference between impact g forces then centripetal g force. The rocket wieght will obviously increase 10000 times its launch wieght but the with a max flight wieght of 200kg that's only 1.91Mn of force. Carbon fiber in proper thickness can easily deal with that.

[@iplanes1]

On the planned version the arm is 35 metres long. It is rotating at 450 rpm which is 7.5 revs per second which gives an angular speed (omega) of about 47 Rad sec-1 . Centripetal acceleration is given by r x omega^2. This comes out at 77315 ms-2. If we approximate g to 10ms-2 then the centripetal acceleration is around 7500g. In the case of the car travelling at 100 mph hitting a very solid object 100 mph = 160 km/hour = 45 ms-1. Let us suppose the car takes 0.1 metres to stop. the acceleration would be -10125 ms-2 - about 1000g. The car would be a write off. The projectile cannot tell the difference between centripetal acceleration and a car crash yet we are talking about engineering the projectile so that it can withstand seven times that acceleration while carrying highly combustable fuel and a payload. I would be interested to see what engineering miracle could do this.

[@collinscody57]

@@iplanes1 boeing designed a something to survive the impact of a 60000 foot fall resulting in it being 200 feet in the ground then exploding two decades ago.

[@TomVillars]

Spinlaunch already has a spin chamber that goes up to 10,000 g. They were surprised that many consumer products like a GoPro camera work fine after being tested at 10,000 g. The real issue is cost as SpaceX Starship hopes to get cost down to $10 / kg which even if off by an order of magnitude is still way below Spinlaunch's hoped-for $2000 / kg.

[@kalebbruwer]

4:08 You wouldn't see lateral movement from a mistimed release. It would still be going straight, but in the wrong direction. Lateral movement probably means the release wasn't clean. As in, the payload was still pulled inwards, but with reduced force or an unbalanced force. That sounds a lot harder to solve than getting the timing consistent

[@tmuny1380]

What will the force a 10,000 g's do to the mechanisms of a rocket engine and its fuel ? The fuel tank itself has to be super strong so it doesn't break apart while it's spinning up with the weight of the fuel pinned against the outside of the tank.

[@toomanyaccounts]

the sat components are the major issue. spinlaunch turns them into mush

[@saumyacow4435]

What the video didn't mention was that the competition includes Rocket Labs's Neutron. Which in my view is the most advanced design in terms of reducing overall launch costs. Neutron aims to minimise the mass and cost of the expendable upper stage. By comparison, Spin launch needs more delta-v in it's upper stage, plus the vehicle must include the additional mass required by high g forces and thermal protection. What that means is, per kg of payload, Spin launch throws away more expensive hardware. I think that Spin Launch can be made to work technically, but it's misconceived economically. Rocket fuel is actually cheap. So if you have a fully and rapidly reusable lower stage (see Neutron) then you've actually solved most of the vehicle cost issue. Also, Neutron goes one step further in integrating the fairing so that it's not expended. And Neutron's design means the upper stage is fully protected so it can be built with minimum materials (and thus cost). Designs like Starship attempt to achieve full reusability, but at the price of roughly doubling the launch mass of the entire vehicle. Why? Because a reusable upper stage requires a lot of extra mass in order to turn it into a lander (wings, structural mass, thermal protection). Plus all that complexity (and the tiles) forces a more complicated process of refurbishment/repair. Starship may never live up to expectations (cost/kg) because it may not be as rapidly reusable as claimed. Neutron on the other hand is designed around the requirement for 24 hour re-flight.

[@grahamstevenson1740]

The energy in the discarded counterweight at launch is equivalent to approx 100kg (0.1 tonnes) TNT ! That should be fun. I noticed that they used film/video of a naval vertical launch missile system too in their promotional video. That stinks of SCAM to me.

[@11moonshot]

Thats a furious V-2 landing right next to their fancy installations...

[@ehb403]

450 rpm seems to be a realistic goal. I’m not sure why they want to reduce the pressure of the whole facility though. It would be quicker and cheaper to move the bearings and related seals outward so that the “disk sandwich” they are pumping air out of becomes a circular tube shape (which should be easier to make strong enough. The high g force seems problematic for fuel systems and onboard electronics. I also wondered about the facility being exposed to wind and to air traffic, but your depiction of it nestled against a hillside seems to address those concerns. It’ll be interesting to see if it ever flies.

[@chrisyoung5929]

The spinning arm has a counter weight. How would your idea counterbalance the satellite in a tube?

[@Riverbed_Dreaming]

Low pressure is essential because the payload on top of the arm will be moving around Mach 6 once it leaves the launch tube, now the payload is designed to withstand the massive aerodynamic forces but the arm and assembly would almost certainly melt, destroy itself or at least need complete replacement before the next launch under this force, assuming it could even survive long enough to spin up to 450rpm. To maintain a good enough vacuum while the arm is spinning round like you suggest would be almost impossible. As Mach number depends on air density, reducing pressure and thus density reduces the Mach number to something survivable with the side effect of also needing less energy to spin up as less energy is lost to air resistance.

[@bernzeppi]

Yeah the problem of what 10,000G does to the payload. There are thin tanks holding propellant and oxidizer which are already stressed to their limits when at rest. Then the huge vibration upon release going from 10,000 G sideways to minus 1000s of Gs frontways. Then there are circuit boards, their components and antennas... none of them will survive the launch.

[@NoBaconForYou]

You are plain wrong. Watch the video that Real Engineering made. He interviews them and he is really good at explaining things. They put a commercial camera in their test chamber and spun it up to full g load and it worked fine afterwards. Most electronics can more than handle 10,000g. Some things would need to be g hardened, but most of the things we launch already have enough g hardening. All it takes to g harden is resin to hold things if necessary and tightly packing your payload There is literally no reason for a payload to have propellant tanks. The system includes a second stage, which handles the g's perfectly well.

[@NoBaconForYou]

SpinLaunch will be most useful on the moon where you don't have to spend money to create a vacuum in the chamber, and you can launch significantly slower considering the moon has like 16% of our gravity or some small number like that. You will see mining companies preferring kinetic launchers over chemical launchers for getting processed materials off of the moon and into space to be transported to earth, or to wherever we need materials like say Mars, or an orbital ship factory. If you aren't launching a biological payload, a kinetic launcher is superior to a chemical launcher in that you don't need to import fuel, you can just use whatever energy you have (if you have a moon factory, it would likely be powered by a combo of solar and nuclear)

[@bernzeppi]

@@NoBaconForYou oh... so the second stage doesn’t endure the g-Force of launch?

[@ego4551]

@@NoBaconForYou yeah let’s just ignore the second stage, any internal structures of the payload, and more……

[@timrockman7]

The released counter weight would be slamming into What? The energy from that impact would make a crater like a missile strike.

[@richardrose7382]

Once the payload is released; is there an issue with the centrifuge getting out of balance and shaking the whole apparatus apart?

[@noloafingwgas]

They release the same weight off the other side to balance that out, or there final plan is to release a second payload 1/2 turn later which would be fast enough to not cause vibrations

[@TheKeule33]

Did you even watch the video?

[@mister_snoogles9031]

you must have stopped watching mid way through or something XD

[@clarencehopkins7832]

Excellent stuff bro, explore this

[@ADRIAAN1007]

I am very skeptical the main problem I see is the payload even surviving even a fraction of 20,000g's. For anything to survive at 20,000g's for more than a few microseconds it would need to be made of solid steel (like a battleship shell).To expect a hollow launch vehicle made of thin composite material with fuel tanks to not be crushed under 20,000 times its own weight for even a few microseconds is ridiculous. To expect it to bear its own weight for over an hour is impossible.

[@11moonshot]

Absolutely! Fully agree! Good argument!

[@DeputyNordburg]

Artillery shells survive 40k.

[@stancooper5436]

It just requires a 'rejig.' 🤣

[@chriswright9096]

Electronics may be able to withstand 20,000g's. But a complex satellite with deployable solar panels, actuators, and other moving parts? No way. A linear system (eg rail gun) of launch would not need such high g forces.

[@daniellang6112]

Great video! Best of luck!

[@dutchangle229]

If you had every designed satellite components for a 15G launch, you would know how absolutely impossible it is to design satellite components for a 10,000G launch (their number, not mine). I feel sorry for everybody investing money in this and all the wonderful engineering talent wasted on this.

[@onion5590]

wach real engineerings video about this, he explains how they are solving this problem

[@azargelin]

And remember its sustained Gs over hours, i don't think current satellites can handle 10G sustained

[@HULLGRAFFITI]

@@azargelin How is it over hours ? Satalites are travelling at thousands of miles an hour for the rest of their life once they are up...And up takes a couple of mins

[@azargelin]

@@HULLGRAFFITI well technically ur traveling at speed to. Gs are rate of acceleration just like when u speed up in a car but say u reach 70mph and put on cruise control ur Gs or rate of acceleration r zero. This thing works by spinning the projectile up to speed, i remember them saying it like 4hr but don't quote me on that. Satellites in space have 0 Gs as there going at a constant speed

[@TheJespersoderlund]

@@azargelin The Gs come constantly during the rotation since you are forcing the payload to accelerate in a different direction other than the tangent, ie in a circle until it's released. After the release it will feel no Gs (other than the 1G pulling from earth)

[@spacecadet35]

The real problems are not addressed. It launches a rocket at 2,200 m/s at close to sea level. That means that for a rocket that is released, it will still need at least 6,000 m/s delta v to achieve orbit. That means lots of fuel and a light weight structure. BUT, an object spinning at 2,200 m/s on a 50 meter long arm is experiencing a force of just over 9,500 Gs. That implies a very heavy structure and very little fuel. Then it is released and goes from a sideways acceleration of 9,500 Gs to 1 G. Then the moment it hits the atmosphere it will suddenly experience a force of over negative 1,000 Gs due to air resistance. This means that all of the fuel sloshes to the "top" of the fuel tanks and cannot be pumped into the engines. This will stop by 60,000 meters or so, but by then you have lost all of your velocity from the 'spin'.

[@aluisious]

"Will it fly?" No. The point of Spinlaunch is to consume venture capital. This is a hobby lol for the founders.

[@rickhibdon11]

Ding ding ding.... We have a WINNER!

[@stevenparker8076]

It keeps them out of mischef.

[@cbarnes2160]

Do we know for sure the counterweight is equal? It was shown significantly closer to the axis on a short arm (and necessarily heavier in proportion). That's a much better idea. If it's 10 times heavier, it's moving 10 times slower. Energy is mass times velocity squared, so it actually has 10 times less energy to dissipate when it splats inside the chamber. And with a ~50 meter main arm, I'd take the concept even further with a weight like 50 times heavier right close to the main axle/bearing. Decelerating something from even 1/50th of mach 7 isn't trivial, especially if it's very heavy. But with 50 times less energy, it's not going to be like a mini nuke going off and turning everything involved into plasma, which an equal counterweight at full speed *would* be...

[@JorgeStolfi]

If the spinner was evacuated, the diaphragm on the exit port would be supporting some 10 tons of weight from atmospheric pressure. It must be very strong material. How come it is so flat? To get it so flat they would have to put it under huge tension. Why would they go to that trouble? Letting it sag a foot or so would greatly reduce the tension. When the rocket breaks through it, should't at least some of the tatters be sucked back into the spinner? Why did they cut that clip short, before the rocket had completely cleared the diaphragm? Why have they released so little footage of that historic test?

[@TexMex421]

It is so flat because there is no vacuum behind it at the time of this launch.

[@JorgeStolfi]

@@TexMex421 That is my conclusion too.

[@rishabhsingh3610]

Real Engineering did a documentary on this, they are testing with a very weak vacuum and they have a redundant seal to prevent from having to pull the vacuum again and again. The final seal is not under so much vacuum during these tests.

[@JorgeStolfi]

@@rishabhsingh3610 How much "very" is that "very weak"? I would guess "none at all"... They are ONLY NOW working on fast doors to close the chamber after the rocket exits.

[@EntropicTroponin]

@@JorgeStolfi did you think they didn't work on that before? Only now that you saw it on a video?

[@grumpysanta6318]

Also consider with the vacuum, whatever the cap is on the launch tube has to be strong enough to hold the vacuum, but then not so strong that the launcher crashing into it causes a whole different set of problems. This is basically doomed to fail.

[@reformCopyright]

That's only one atmosphere of pressure after all. I don't think that's the biggest problem they have.

[@grumpysanta6318]

@@reformCopyright It's a huge problem. 1 atm is 14.7 psi. If the opening is 3 feet in diameter, that's 1,017.9 square inches, or almost 15,000 pounds of weight sitting on top of it. 7 1/2 tons. That is not an insignificant number.

[@MichaelClark-uw7ex]

With the size of what they have planned and the energy involved, if anything went wrong it would be like a nuclear bomb going off or more accurately, a meteor impact. And there are a whole lot of things that could go wrong.

[@TheEulerID]

There will be about 6 GJ of kinetic energy per tonne of missile (including the counterweight of course). Given that the "missile" will not just be the payload, but a two-stage rocket which has to take the payload from 2.4 km/s to 7.8 km/s for low Earth orbit, then it cannot help but weight several tonnes including fuel. Even a 10 tonne "missile" will mean 60 GJ of kinetic energy, and that's excluding the rotating mass of the launch mechanism itself. That's about 15 tonnes of TNT equivalent. I am reminded of that scene from Contact where the first whirling "transport machine" is sabotaged and disintegrates flinging parts of the machine destroying an observation building many kilometres away. The people who design this thing will have to make sure that it's not lined up with any habitable locations within a very large range. An Iowa class battleship only fired it's shells at about mach 2.3, and they only weighed about 2 tonnes with a range of 39 km. Just how far something spinning two much heavier loads up to mach 7 might do, I shudder to think.

[@entangledmindcells9359]

@@TheEulerID what could go wrong. by the way.. thanks for putting the actual #'s down..

[@RomainVanAelst]

With all those G's generated, that's another thing satelite builders will have to take in consideration. Hype

[@DeconvertedMan]

Its dumb- will not work/can not work. Hype/money making scam - see thudnerf00t's video.

[@DrBenMiles]

Hey! I saw the @Thunderf00t video, I think he makes a lot of very reasonable points. But I also think the problem seems tractable from an engineering point of view. Are they there yet? No, definitely not. But they are reasonably early TRL, so maybe that's ok? There might be a lot of duct tape and crossed fingers holding everything together at the moment.

[@DeconvertedMan]

@@DrBenMiles I dont know, spinning around like that to be yeeted off planet seems pretty dangerous - for non-human travel it might work - but it just depends if the cost is equal to what we know works then its not worth doing. I want to get the giant sling shot idea up and running - only a few trillion for it, someone gofundme :D

[@bside8568]

this would be B as an engineering project. but is a grandios flop when it's presented as a real alternative. this is a money pit. I heard Trevor Milton needs a job. maybe hire him as CEO ?

[@stephencraimer1461]

@@DrBenMiles This is a cargo mover not a people mover, but you could use it to move oxidizer and fuel, oh wait a minute, that is what they are doing.

[@meuyoutube3106]

Creating a high speed wagon where the rocket will be on, moving along a railway L shape, with the final end pointing up, using the same magnet levitated bullet train technology sounds as crazy as spinlaunch project. 😆

[@77ghostx]

Took one look at their engineering team and immediately concluded they're a scam. To be a successful hardware engineering startup, you need a team with significant experience and leadership with advanced degrees for the intense creative work required to create solutions to all the novel engineering problems that will most certainly br encountered in an undertaking like this. Not a clutch of undergrads fresh off school with not a lick of experience between them.

[@charlesvan13]

Experienced aerospace engineers would know this isn't going to work. There will be 10 million Kg of force on the rocket and centrifuge. It will fly apart. Even if they could get the centrifuge to work the rocket will superheat going mach 5 in the lower atmosphere. And how do you remove the 450 rpm of rotation from it.

[@MsSomeonenew]

You know who the lead designer was for SpaceX on their first rockets? It was Elon, because "serious" people didn't want to sign up with some random startup, and Elon only really knew software. And the expert advisors they did get said to buy tech from Russia because they can't really make anything new on their own. Everyone knows better until the day you get shit done.

[@DeputyNordburg]

They just keep launching them higher. 80,000 feet with the last launch. What can we do to stop this impossible thing?

[@charlesvan13]

@@DeputyNordburg Sending a camera tens of thousands of feet into the air isn't remotely near launching a satellite. As my other comment explains, this can't be done with a giant baseball pitching machine.

[@DeputyNordburg]

@@charlesvan13 Wait the 1/3 scale launcher they named "Suborbital Accelerator" is not putting things into space? Those liars! Hey have you eve read the NYT article from the 1920 where they said Robert Godard was a scam artist and rocket would never make it to space.

[@7thsealord888]

It's an idea that might be worth experimenting with. I don't expect it to become a fully-realized and reliable system for quite a while. The thing that keeps coming to my mind is, what happens when something goes badly wrong at launch? And it will, sooner or later. For a traditional rocket, it probably means the rocket blowing up on the pad. It happens. Big fire, stuff needs to be replaced afterwards. If a spin-launcher goes badly wrong, we're looking at random chunks of wreckage being flung in random directions at multi-mach speeds. I have a very bad feeling about this.

[@nikkiofthevalley]

So do I. Especially with the full scale one.. You'd have literal tons of concrete going flying at possibly significant fractions of Mach 1.

[@paulbates4100]

Propellant

[@DrBenMiles]

You've ignited my curiosity

[@paulbates4100]

Just my pedantry :) lots of folks talk about loading a rocket entirely with fuel ...it'd go nowhere without oxidiser.

[@paulbates4100]

Like your vids, interesting points of view.

[@DrBenMiles]

@@paulbates4100 fair point! I've made a mental note. And thanks!👍

[@LordDustinDeWynd]

Spin launch release is not yet quick enough to eliminate lateral transalation at the release point that sends the payload up the tube. In slowed-down video, you can see nose moving sideways as it penetrates tube cover. Lateral translation screws up the calculations, a mil down here is Miles up there. Notice the exit tube is an oval to allow for the translation, NOT circular (yet).

[@LordDustinDeWynd]

Release needs to be instantaneous at the point where the payload is aligned up the tube but with no lateral movement. There is ONE point where that is true, but the release mechanism is unable to mechanically release it in that pico-second that alignment is perfect.

[@NondescriptMammal]

No, we cannot all get behind the "democratization" of space. Speak for yourself. This whole video smells like a thinly veiled advertisement for the SpinLaunch company.

[@robertfraser9551]

10000g means the payload structure and internal systems have got to be massively upgraded. Even a circuit board becomes a major design effort and every tiny detail has to be supported and reacted ! Highest g on a commercial airplane is about 50g. Aircraft pulling 2g whilst pitching up and elevator moving with dynamic flexing all add to get high g on balance weights. 10000g is an extreme challenge.

[@concinnity9676]

At 2:18, you say 200,000 ft. I thought someone would have told you before now, that is a rather useless unit, so I say it now. If you want to convey the height in a form someone can understand, may I please suggest SI units? Just say 60 km and we will all understand.

[@jjhpor]

Hey! Feet and inches work great and aren't hard to understand. If you can't do the unit conversions you probably don't know enough to watch this video much less make silly comments.

[@tommapar]

What about rails? You could, instead of using a centrifuge, use a rail system that pushes the thing around using electromagnets, that would reduce the heat that would normally be produced due to friction against the rails. It would also aid in wobble produced by the release of the damned thing at launch time, since guiding it with a rail would almost definitely stabilize its trajectory.

[@ProgressiveConservative]

I’m guessing the issue with that would be friction caused by rails making it difficult to get to the necessary speeds.

[@sicksock435446]

​@@ProgressiveConservative Obviously the bearing sheer of a multi tonne spinning arm suddenly shifting by thousands of tonnes of force is easier friction to handle XD

[@fuge74]

for the counter weight, they are perposing a double launch. two payloads released a short time one after another.

[@TheDashACorner]

"Don't get as much heat buildup" 6:23 I really struggle to make another example to be as much as an understatement as yours here.