What Happened To SpinLaunch & The Orbital Accelerator?

Almost one year ago was the last time we got a big update from SpinLaunch on their unique launch prototype. Specifically, on September 27th, 2022, SpinLaunch completed its 10th suborbital test flight using its suborbital accelerator. This test was considered a success by the company and was quite a big deal because it included payloads from NASA and a few other groups.
Despite this success, we are approaching a full year without a suborbital test and very little in terms of updates from the company. This brings up the question of what has SpinLaunch been up to and when can we expect to see this full system in action. Based on third party reporting, it seems as if this entire time SpinLaunch has been continuing to try and find a location for an Orbital Accelerator.
A process that is proving to be much more difficult than originally thought. While the suborbital variant is good for testing, if the company truly wants to test this system and reach space, the Orbital accelerator is the next big step. Here I will go more in-depth into the company’s plan, progress on a new launch system, the difficulties they are facing, and more.
Full article here - thespacebucket.com/what-happe...
For more space-related content check out - thespacebucket.com/
Credit:
SpinLaunch - / @spinlaunch6288
Chapters:
0:00 - Intro
0:55 - Break In Activity
2:55 - Orbital Accelerator Progress

[@acefighterpilot]

They're in the "drag our feet as long as possible before people realize this is a scam" phase.

[@zachary3777]

The reason it can't work is in the name. There is no force to stop the projectile spinning around it's own axis after release. It's like throwing a Frisbee that is going to spin through the air.

[@imconsequetau5275]

@@zachary3777 Release the front latch first. The trailing latch pivots and releases when the connection angle is correct. There will be no spin except within the spherical liquid propellant tanks. Deploy tail fins for stability.

[@zachary3777]

@@imconsequetau5275 is this what they are planning, or your idea? I think that might work

[@skuula]

​@@imconsequetau5275try run the numbers. Have you?

[@scotteverett5932]

@@zachary3777my biggest concern is that post launch they have a hypersonic unbalanced spinning carbon fibre arm of death

[@StefanReich]

SpinLaunch is pretty much on par with Hyperloop in terms of its probability of ever being realized

[@SpiraSpiraSpira]

Hyperloop is vastly more likely.

[@freddybell8328]

Hyperloop is very likely just requires cheap tunneling because above ground loses too many risks. Once tunneling is cheaper it's inevitable.

[@TerryClarkAccordioncrazy]

Plus fusion power and gravitricity.

[@RowOfMushyTiT]

Maybe for it's intended purpose, but for hypersonic weapons development it could be insanely useful.

[@troy3456789]

@@SpiraSpiraSpira You mean "hyperloop" is unlikely. You spelled *unlikely* wrong.

[@trollimusprime8521]

Have they considered switching to a giant trebuchet? It would yield the same results but look way cooler

[@FPfreddyyy]

I was gonna say it will have the same problems plus some more, but yes it will look cooler

[@gkw9882]

Cooler or not, a trebuchet couldn't go that fast.

[@antonnym214]

They need high altitude so they can cut through most of the air. They also need to be near the equator. I would recommend Pichincha Mountain in Quito, Equacor. Only 0° 15' from the equator. It has road access to take you to 12,500 ft elevation and cable car access to the summit at 16,000 ft. It is an extinct volcano, which means you won't have any of that inconvenient lava hassle some of the other volcanoes in the region would offer. It is only six miles from Quito city center and is very easily accessible by road. You could mount the launcher itself on the summit and have your control station at the 12,500 ft level so your people can breathe.

[@fixpacifica]

I spent a week on Mt Lemmon outside Tucson, Arizona at 9000 feet. I had a nonstop headache and could barely think. I don't know if a control station at 12,500 feet is a good idea.

[@glennhousley7939]

⁰⁰00

[@Freakhealer]

Thanks for the suggestion, I will pass it to the concerned teams.

[@bradleyrex2968]

Altitude would be far more beneficial than proximity to the equator. But the cost of building and maintaining the system must also be considered. Everything about altitude and proximity to the equator is just as true for rockets and they are not launching them from mountain tops.

[@sciencecompliance235]

@@bradleyrex2968 What makes you say that? Have you done the calculations? From the equator, you can launch into ANY orbit without needing to do a plane-change maneuver. Plane change maneuvers are very costly in terms of delta v.

[@rpercifieldjr]

There are many issues with this system, as many have covered here. Per Spin Launch, they propose a 5,000mph release velocity. This is Mach 6.5. The forces upon the projectile when exiting the system will be massive. Lets look at some of them: 1. Rotational Yaw. You can see the projectile exiting the spin device with a significant rotational moment around the center of mass. This is due to the fact that while released in vacuum the rotational moment of the projectile is not attenuated by aerodynamic forces, and this causes the projectile leave the port still rotating. As you increase the rpm for higher velocities this moment will increase to the point at your window will need to be larger to accommodate for this rotation, and the forces applied when encountering the air will be significant. You can see this instability in their videos. 2. The ram pressure in the atmosphere at 6.5M is significant, and will cause excessive force upon the forward leading edges, and well as negative acceleration turning kinetic energy into heat at a rapid rate. You will also have this force being very abrupt upon rupturing the vacuum membrane. Something akin to hitting a brick wall. It will not do the electronics and sensitive systems any favors. 3. The impact of the seal for the vacuum within the spinning system will place at 7,333ft per second will significantly increase the forces applied to the body of the projectile. Any large cover able to withstand the atmospheric pressure across a large area, will have sufficient mass to cause damage. Look what foam from the fuel tank on the space shuttle did to the leading edge of the spacecraft, at much lower speeds. This is nothing but a snake oil scheme to get funding for next years vacation or house. As long as it is gullible people investing their own money on this I am fine, keep public funds and my retirement from this type of money pit.

[@ChrisCooper312]

The trouble is that a lot of the money sunk into this sort of thing does come from taxpayers in the form of things like tax breaks. If I invest a million into a company like this, that's a million I don't have to pay tax on.

[@dannydetonator]

@Chriscooper312 Is that so simple as not paying any tax equivalent to amount invested? Far from having experience with business practices and investment law of US, in EU you don't have 100% taxback as far as i know, never mind private investments in high-tech start-ups. We have 60% tax-rebate you apply for and get refunded if everything checks out for donations to official charities.Never seen funding paid by your own taxes, just for projects which pass for grants from specifically designated EU funds.

[@Gersberms]

What I don't understand is how the team behind this just seems to keep working on this project. They're somehow capable of designing the thing, but not capable of understanding these massive issues. What's going on with that? I mean, is it like Elizabeth Holmes and they know very well that it's impossible? Or are they so far up Mt. Stupid that they're unaware of the scam they are running?

[@geoffstrickler]

All 3 of those are solvable issues. Yes, they are real issues, but I can show ways to solve all 3. The are issues with the sub-orbital launch design, not necessarily with the design of the future orbital launch facility.

[@billkurek5576]

Landing a rocket booster on a barge floating in the ocean was also a crazy idea. The physical force involved in the spin launch process or immense. I would stay away from investing in the scheme. I think,however, that this may have an underlying use for the military. The United States, being the largest arms dealer in the world may be interested in this concept for drone launches. It would be like a machine gun launching guided drone armaments. Big Money, yea baby.

[@molybdaen11]

I would be very astounded if they manage to launch a single satelite into a stable orbit.

[@Keiranful]

What's the basis for your comment? Are you an expert in rocketry? A physicist who crunched the numbers and found a flaw? Highly informed and experienced experts doubted we could affordably reuse rockets. SpaceX showed it's possible. Same with propulsive landing. Or simple flight for that matter (days before the Wright Brother's took off, the world renowned engineer hired by the US Gov. to do just that threw in the towel). Every leap forward is impossible. Until it isn't.

[@fissavids8767]

​@@Keiranfuland who are you?

[@trolojolo6178]

​@@KeiranfulNo just simple knowledge of physics.

[@Keiranful]

@@fissavids8767 only an engineer with a good understanding of the conceptual material. I also don't spout doubts without going into why it will never work. Neither do I claim it to be the future of space travel. I just can't stand narrow-mindedness.

[@Keiranful]

@@trolojolo6178 The engineering is tricky, sure, but the basic physics? Simple physics says it's eminently possible. I'd like to know what makes you so assertive that it isn't.

[@stuartschaffner9744]

This has never seemed to be feasible given the laws of physics. If the accelerator arm is roughly ten meters long and the exit velocity is Mach 5, my back-of-the-envelope calculation of a = v^2/r gives a centrifugal acceleration of 200g. I'm confident that the contents of an artillery shell could survive that, but not any commercial electronics that I have ever heard of. Orbital velocity is Mach 23, so an exit velocity to reach orbit would produce a centrifugal force of about 20,000g. That's a SERIOUS amount of stress on the vehicle. I don't know any kind of material that could be used to make a strong-enough rotor arm, if the missile to be thrown weighs very many kg. However, it gets worse. There's a vacuum inside the accelerator, but once the missile exits it hits air at approximately sea level. Even at Mach 5, a lot of that energy is going to be bled off by moving through the atmosphere. A lot of this energy will be transferred to a sonic boom. This wouldn't be like the sonic boom from a jet flying at Mach 1.5. Even at Mach 5 it would be BIG. I don't even want to think about what it would be at Mach 23. The new plan seems to be to fling a full rocket an undetermined amount into the air, then have the rocket ignite and carry the rocket into space. Like launching from an airplane, this gives the rocket a small head start, so it could perhaps be lighter. However, it still must resist hundreds of g's of acceleration, which would mean that it would have to be built much stronger than, say, a ground-launched rocket. Disclaimer: I have degrees in physics, but I am certainly not a qualified rocket scientist. My calculations are only rough approximations and have not been thoroughly checked and tested. I sense that something is very wrong about the "science" behind this project.

[@s1l3ntw1]

Your points have been discussion topics for a while now, for the exact reasons you have stated. Unfortunately it seems everyone is super keen to go along with the hype without actually looking at the details.

[@paulmichaelfreedman8334]

Yes, I've had the exact same reservations about this launch method since the day I heard about it. Simple physics says the engineering challenges are extreme and thus seriously limits the chances of success. And the maintenance and checkup schedule for such a launch installation would have to be extreme too. Any flaw in manufacturing of the high strength structures that have to withstand the high G forces will result in a catastrophe sooner or later.

[@aadamawad1647]

I agree it seems like a staggering problem. If they launch a regular second stage vehicle it’ll require sensitive flight computers. If they are using liquid propellant for the second stage then the pressure from the G force on any tanks or valve hardware would result in serious over engineering, reducing payload mass. By the time they solve this problem (if at all) SpaceX will most likely have their next gen launch vehicle Starship in operation and beat them at cost per kilo.

[@chadleworthy1741]

I'd love to see the plasma produced at the moment of leaving the vacuum at that speed.. I think they will make more money selling the material built to survive launch both in the vehicle and the launcher. Like a submarine imploding. But apparently they have a door fast enough.🤔😏

[@JohnnieHougaardNielsen]

The video did show the launched capsule to contain a rocket engine to bring the payload up to orbital speed. While this helps making the requirements less extreme, it is indeed still seriously strong g forces during rotation before release. And that rocket engine and fuel tanks would also have to be able to "survive" the rotation.

[@briant7265]

They got a 200 kg projectile to 30,000 feet, with no remaining vertical speed. You could attach one to each external hardpoint of an F-18F and get 11 at a time to 40,000 feet, with mach 1 vertical speed, which would net an additional 17,000 feet or so.

[@Name-nw9uj]

then why isn't it being done?

[@testpilotmafia862]

​@Name-nw9uj it is done, rockcoons and air lifted 500 lb rockets to orbit are not unheard-of. The Pegasus is probably a superior effort to this abomination.

[@Name-nw9uj]

@@testpilotmafia862 right but all of those are rare. if a small jets can be used to launch small payloads like this spin launch thing why arent they being used?

[@briant7265]

@@Name-nw9uj Because it isn't a good way to collect huge $$$ in investments and grants and give yourself a big paycheck.

[@testpilotmafia862]

@briant7265 Well said. Shiny big facilities are a good way to separate investors from their money. A dull boring working method isn't as flashy.

[@nameofthegame9664]

If they ever build the orbital accelerator (which I highly doubt) the first catastrophic failure will be spectacular.

[@ololh4xx]

The people within the contraption will be evaporated within milliseconds

[@dougaltolan3017]

I had my thousandth successful sub orbital launch yesterday. I threw a rock.

[@orion789]

I think this is a great idea.... but for off world launches. This would work very well on the moon, go cheaply get payloads back to earth. Or on Mars for a similar reason. If you wanted to port raw materials frequently and reliably back into earths gravity well with minimal oversight and cost, this is it. And the vacuum, noise and reusability issues wouldn't be as applicable on those worlds.

[@jameswilson5165]

It would be far cheaper than a magnetic rail gun or mass driver to deliver menerals from lunal mining.

[@salvatoreshiggerino6810]

@@jameswilson5165 I think a conventional gun would beat both the spin launch and any electromagnetic sci-fi solutions.

[@Tuttomenui]

Yeah definitely ok for an environment that is already under vacuum. Might even work on Mars and still not need any extra vacuum, Build it on the top of Olympus mons.

[@jackdbur]

The issues would be the propellant to fire gun and the very large barrel. Magnetic accelerator and rail gun components are lighter and only require electricity.

[@up4open]

But it does work here too. It's a question of willingness to get over the noise. Right now we burn all kinds of fuel and make much longer sustained noise with traditional rockets.

[@SeaScoutDan]

My biggest concern with spin launch is the 10,000 Gs the satellite and booster engine are expected to survive while spinning. Edit. I am concerned about the plumbing for an upper stage rocket, and an antenna large enough to aim back the 100 miles to earth, and unfoldable solar panels. Edit: With at 100 meter diameter spinner, would need 10,000 Gs ( not 50 Gs ).

[@_Revengist]

That number is a little too low. It's closer to 10,000 g's.

[@LuigiMordelAlaume]

Not to mention the vacuum that will fill with air the moment the rocket exits going mach 30+. We've all seen space ships as they enter the super thin outer atmosphere, imagine hitting a wall of full atmosphere both in terms of heat and aerodynamic stability. The idea is garbage, it'll never happen. We'll have fusion powered apace elevators before this vaporware ever solidifies.

[@fgregerfeaxcwfeffece]

This comment displays nicely how much they misrepresent their progress.

[@johnwang9914]

Then there's impacting the atmosphere as you leave the vacuum chamber and then the heat from air friction as it travels at much greater than orbital speed through the thickest part of the atmosphere as the whole point is to still have orbital velocity once it leaves the atmosphere so the speed must be much greater at launch and remember how much re-entry heat we currently have to deal with when a spacecraft slows below orbital velocity and encounter the thinnest portion of our atmosphere. If they want to go with this launch strategy then they need to focus on suborbital and firing a rocket once it leaves the atmosphere to finish accelerating to orbital velocity without the hindrance of the atmosphere. Not quite completely rocket less launch but something that is probably achievable. There's a big difference in velocity required to be orbital from suborbital. The Canadian space gun was focused on firing a rocket once out of the atmosphere though they never got past testing a few models for aerodynamics and launching suborbital dumb ballistic loads that would be unaffected by the extreme g-forces.

[@stefanwalden3339]

@@johnwang9914 I agree with the concerns you raised regarding the air friction after leaving the pressure chamber. But the payload will need a rocket in any case (if they want to reach a stable orbit around earth). Orbital mechanics dictate, that the projectile will hit the earth after revolving around it. So you always need to fire up a rocket and increase the speed after launch (when the projectile ist at the peak of it's trajectory) to "pull up" the orbit on the other side of the earth.

[@kasuha]

I did the math a while ago and was surprised to realize that payload spinning in their planned 100 m diameter spinner chamber needs to withstand more extreme forces than if it was launched out of 50 m long cannon at the same initial launch speed. The only advantage seems to be that they can build the speed up gradually using the spinner but we all know that it comes with all sorts of technical difficulties mainly related to vacuum in the chamber and rotational moment of inertia of the payload and at the same time we all know railguns exist and have way higher barrel exit velocity than their planned 2 km per second.

[@dionysus2006]

Make the payload water. Once in orbit it is recovered by a space tug and taken to a processing depot. From this you could get drinking water, oxygen for breathing, and hydrogen for rocket fuel. I think they could make use of those resources in space.

[@juhajuntunen7866]

Would old german Paris Gun with high elevation and slower gunpowder be more gentle?

[@sparkysmalarkey]

If we can imagine it, I firmly believe all ideas can be realized given enough time. I think a better comparison for proof of concept that sophisticated electronics can survive, would be hypersonic missiles.

[@luka-null]

railguns also have the problem of trying to turn both their payload and their rails into plasma, though. - β

[@Boomchacle]

How many watts of power would be required to fire a coilgun with equivalent energy? Mass drivers are a cool concept.

[@manuellongo4365]

Forget all the difficulties and concentrate on one. The instant the projectile is released, the spinning arm is instantly out of balance and if you watched the video of the wind generator destroy itself you can see just how much energy a spinning object has. If you get that far then you got over the problem of releasing the payload with incredible precision or the projectile will destroy itself and whatever happens to be within a fairly large area.

[@-NGC-6302-]

release the counterweight at the same time and just slam it into the ground

[@maxmyzer9172]

@@-NGC-6302- ouch!

[@donuthole7236]

@@-NGC-6302- what's gunna stop the counterweight once its released? That will have equal energy .......... just in the opposite direction 😮

[@downix]

​@@donuthole7236right into the ground supports holding up the spinning arm.

[@bigcnmmerb0873]

They’ve solved that issue with a temporary counterweight that they just smash , the actual launcher will release a reusable counterweight half a rotation after the initial release which shouldn’t cause any major off balance seeing as it is occurring half a revolution later.

[@eno2870]

This thing will never happen. It's absolutely insane on so many levels. It's mind boggling to me that anyone has given them money to get as far as they have.

[@zybch]

Idiots are still pumping hundreds of millions into solar 'freaking' roadways... I weep for the intelligence of my species.

[@Savage_Thinker]

I agree this is some weird experiment burning though money maybe for something else

[@Bollibompa]

Bah-Baah-Baaaaah

[@Android480]

I don’t know, it’s worth looking into at least. It’s not theoretically impossible like plenty of other bunk promises, but it needs a couple breakthroughs in material sciences first

[@kurtiunlisted8589]

Right? Things like these are really a symptom of our „post-truth“ times.

[@7thsealord888]

At this stage, I think it's an interesting idea for small-scale testing, that's it. Safety-wise, this monstrosity scares the #### out of me. If a rocket or big gun type launch goes wrong, the worst case scenario is blowing up / burning down the immediate launch area. If this thing goes wrong, the worst case scenario is random chunks of wreckage being flung in random directions at EXTREME velocity.

[@anthonyjaccard3694]

"Random chunks of wreckage flung in a random direction at extreme velocity". Sounds to me like you're describing a "conventional" mid-air rocket explosion. Yet, rocket launches are more frequent than ever these days. In spinlaunch's case, if the payload detaches before its time, it will first have to go through a nigh parallel thick metal wall that can be engineered to stand this eventuality

[@7thsealord888]

@@anthonyjaccard3694 All you have to be sure of is that all of that aforementioned wreckage flies in the right direction to hit that wall. No problem.

[@anthonyjaccard3694]

@@7thsealord888 The whole spinning contraption is enclosed in a big metal cylinder so I really don't see how that's a problem. Plus, should the spinning arm rupture in any way, the geometry of the things makes it so the fastest moving parts (the extremities) will hit that wall with the most parallel trajectory to the wall, allowing it to have less of an impact on the surface. Again, if you are okay with rockets at the rate they are being launched today, you have no reason to be scared of this thing. It has many flaws but security really is the least of them

[@7thsealord888]

@@anthonyjaccard3694 Rockets are a well-established technology, and we are pretty much alongside all the things that can go wrong with them. This contraption ...... MAYBE, as you seem to think, it is the greatest thing since sliced bread. I am unconvinced at this stage. It is going to need A LOT more testing under varied conditions before I share anywhere near your certainty on the matter.

[@anthonyjaccard3694]

@@7thsealord888 my point is : rockets too were once a very much untested technology were the worst case scenario was a big explosion and a huge hunk of metal being flung in a somewhat random direction. However, with enough time and security measures, we are now in a world where a rocket is launched every week without everyone in the world fearing that at any given moment they could receive a rocket on their face. It certainly wasn't without some catastrophic accidents but it hasn't stopped it from happening so maybe we shouldn't discredit a potential great technology because it "seems" dangerous without first testing it

[@darioinfini]

"Ultra high speed airlock doors ... help spinlaunch launch every couple of hours" Words are easy. Objects are hard.

[@thomaswalder4808]

This ular high speed airlock should keep the vacuum inside. But how is the payload for the next shot is attached in a vacuum? And how should it be attached while that rotor is still spinning?

[@allanlimaverde6201]

The main issue with this is: the payload has max velocity at the same time as max air pressure. That is extremely inefficient. A conventional rocket accelerates as it lowers air pressure, which is ideal. So that idea could work on e.g. the Moon

[@up4open]

It's ideal only because we've studied very little at this velocity. Study more, and you'll learn more about how to beat the problems. Besides, hypersonic is a thing now, you'll need to do this anyway.

[@hkkhgffh3613]

In addition you have a enormous acceleration in the launcher...

[@Android480]

But, it’s not like efficiency matters in this case, if your infrastructure can handle it. In rocketry, inefficiency means millions of dollars wasted, and hundreds of tons of extra fuel. Here, it just means you need to spin faster. I agree it won’t work with our current engineering, but if it ever does in the future it will be orders of magnitude cheaper, no matter how “inefficient” it is

[@ololh4xx]

there is no such thing like a "max" velocity. Its possible to accelerate thing within atmospheres like our own up to the speed of light - *but* you will need exponential amounts of energy for that. If you want to come close to the speed of light ... well ... better be packing the entire energy of several stars, per second, that is.

[@Andreas-gh6is]

You don't know the rocket equation. The spin launcher is extremely efficient, because it accelerates the payload without being subject to the rocket equation. The rocket equation means that the fuel grows exponentially to the payload and velocity, because you need to haul the fuel you need to haul the fuel. Inside that vacuum chamber, spinning on the ground, you don't need any of that. Then you release the payload, and even though the speed decreases from the first second, it will reach an altitude that would require immensely more energy if it were to be reached with a rocket engine. Then the second stage ignites.

[@barthennin6088]

Here's my take as an engineer...I'll try to keep this as non-technical as possible... This will never work because PHYSICS!

[@plainText384]

I was litterally trying to find out what they were doing TODAY, like 4 hours ago. I haven't heard anything in months.

[@jtjames79]

I'm glad I'm not the only one. Not today but recently. This is a useless comment that could be expressed with an upvote, but I already did that and wanted more engagement points.

[@yehudalanger]

Same

[@robertthomason8905]

Vacuum to atmosphere. Can't see it happening. Space maybe. But a big rubber band should work just as well.

[@ogjk]

@@jtjames79it’s obviously an AI/low effort channel

[@NPassosiation]

Same, talked about it to my co worker today, and this popped out in my recommendation video😅

[@Kakker71]

Even without doing the math, this project seems to be rather ridiculous. I can only imagine the HUGE g forces a sattelite should be able to withstand continously to not break something in the spinning process. I read, that it´s over 10.000 g's and what kind of fine electronic equipment can take that kind of force? And what would happen to the facility in case of an accident during the spin? I would not like to be in the area!!

[@edcross447]

You'd be surprised. I've worked with companies needing motors, gears and electric parts to withstand 10,000 gs. Smart munitions, timed fuses, electrical contactors small computer chips. I recall one that was a sabot fired missile that needed to deploy stabilization fins after being fired from a tank or naval gun. So they needed a gearbox that could withstand 10k gs. I'm more worried about how you arrest the 1300 rpm backspin you put on your rocket after launching it.

[@TheNitroG1]

@@edcross447 I doubt they have thrown anything much further than your average pumpkin chucking trebuchet.

[@villenummela2540]

What happens to the arm and bearings etc when the spinning mass suddenly changes when the launch vehicle is released? I'd imagine there would be some heavy shaking and stress. Usually things that spin that fast have to be extremely well balanced.

[@muctop17]

That are the questions I’m looking for! And how accurate has the release-time-window to be, not to hit the wall?

[@DalHrusk]

In one video, they said that there is counterweight on the other side of the arm which is released too. Of course it is quite inefficient and problematic at high speed. I am just reproducing what they claimed.

[@villenummela2540]

Sounds logical. @@DalHrusk

[@Blake-jl8lh]

Currently the counter mass is fired down into a very solid wall they also mentioned working on the ability to have two payloads, one on each side, the second payload will be unbalanced for half a rotation but they don't think that will be all that bad but haven't shown that yet.

[@michaelwoodhams7866]

Something I've wondered about SpinLaunch: how do they maintain balance in their centrifuge? They spin up a payload, then release it. If their centrifuge arm is balanced with the payload, it becomes badly unbalanced at the moment of release. Do they somehow accommodate this imbalance? Do they somehow very quickly rebalance? (e.g. a counterweight which is released downwards at the same moment the payload is released upwards.)

[@paulmichaelfreedman8334]

Probably one of the things they keep a "Corporate secret"

[@GrantOakes]

The only viable solution to that physics problem I can think of would be to have the counterweight pulled on magnetically and at the instant of the launch vehicle release the magnetic field would be shut off.

[@edwardson6825]

They covered this already. They plan to drop a dummy payload from the short end that is much heavier but traveling much slower. Catch it and reattach for the next launch. As crazy as the ideal sounds they have put a lot of thought and engineering into the project.

[@DistracticusPrime]

@@edwardson6825 I didn't know about the counterweight payload idea. Thanks! I wonder how they plan to "catch" it? If the weight is magnetized, dropping it through a coil would allow for regenerative braking. That might be a cost-saving upgrade for the long-term.

[@michaelwoodhams7866]

@@edwardson6825 Thanks, that is the most obvious method, but I didn't see it in the animations.

[@GrantOakes]

Seems like this team is moving forward without addressing the real physics issues, kind of like an unproven submersible design we've all recently heard about.

[@up4open]

So the full success of their first version isn't a reason to scale up then?

[@MrBusunglueck]

@@up4open You mean the full failure of their first version?

[@JoeOvercoat]

@@up4open There is no justification other than maintaining the grift train.

[@up4open]

@@JoeOvercoat Cool story Joe. I see value, and if it's not clear to you why, that's ok.

[@LordDustinDeWynd]

They've probably not yet eliminated the horizontal translation as it launches. One can see the nose moving sideways in the clip. The centrifuge release mechanism does not release quickly enough. Remember early long oval launch tubes? They've gotten quicker but not there yet.

[@zachary3777]

It's nothing to do with the release speed. It's spinning. It doesn't magically stop spinning once it's released.

[@LordDustinDeWynd]

@@zachary3777 That's precisely why it translates. Glad you understood.

[@grahvis]

I would like to see a demonstration of the hatch opening and shutting in a 'blink of an eye' which maintained such a large vacuum on one side of it. The only video I have seen was the projectile breaking through a membrane that was not covering a vacuum.

[@TonyFarley-gi2cv]

Do you know what direction you updated or who's concept you updated in between or through because of algorithm structures light years or is that fraction years rotation to do what in between them

[@slowerpicker]

Huh, a sonic boom every two hours, day and night. I’m surprised the neighbors are upset about that.

[@martythemartian99]

The northern part of Western Australia is reasonably close to the equator, so should be a good place to launch. Also I'd believe the locals, though concerned, would be more willing to listen than those on Hawaii. 😎

[@michaelginever732]

I was just going to suggest the same. Either that or parts of the Northern Territory. As well as less inhabited there is also copious amounts of sunshine for solar energy.

[@sciencecompliance235]

It's understandable that people don't want regular sonic booms in their backyard.

[@yaxleader]

Only problem would be launching payloads for the DoD, DARPA, or any U.S entity really. Rocket Lab skirts this slightly through some complicated supply chain management, but SpinLaunch would need a solution to ensure only U.S entities have access to U.S assets.

[@up4open]

In that case an island of Java would be cheaper to buy.

[@Kaizen712]

While I wish them the best, I'm skeptical an orbital spin launch system is physically possible...

[@panda4247]

They should scout for locations that are high in the mountains, for them to be able to "skip" the most substantial part of the atmosphere... like Cayambe (the mountain next to the town with the same name in Ecuador, some 5700m high and directly on the equator (0°1' N) ) or Mt. Kilimanjaro (5800m high, 3° S). Basically, in that altitude you have only 0.5 atm pressure

[@Alexandragon1]

Thx for the video!

[@ruthdoyle9085]

I think it needs a longer barrel with several ultra high speed air lock doors, varying the pressures along the barrel. The projectile would pass through progressively denser air until it departs the barrel, thus preventing “the wall of air”...

[@chikokishi7030]

they could just have a few chambers with that fabric cover at different pressures? maybe?

[@dirtypure2023]

Ultimately the same amount of air resistance will be exerted on the launch vehicle, you'd only be drastically increasing the complexity and cost with this design but for no gain.

[@DJ_POOP_IT_OUT_FEAT_LIL_WiiWii]

like saddam hussein gun?

[@MrKittykat111]

I'd like to know what happens to the remaining (ROTATING!) mass when the cargo/missile is released.

[@robertwaddell4733]

Dear readers. Many comments here about 'It won't work.. etc", but not many actual descriptions on why it won't work. Obviously there are mechanical problem previously mentioned, release timing, high g resisting components etc. but the biggest problem almost never mentioned is ground atmospheric air pressure. At a (proposed) exit velocity of 2200m.sec^-1 (5000 mph) atmoshperic air resistance would drastically reduce the missile's velocity and cause it to heat up. It would mechanically unfeasible to to reduce the missiles coefficient of friction to a low enough level where the missile would reach atmospheric altitude where air pressure becomes lossless. The section of physics where this can be studied and modelled is called Ballistics and even simple spreadsheet calculations are sufficient to show that Spinlaunch is not a viable method of space launch. The biggest question is why NASA etc.are putting money into it.

[@Tagraff]

I wonder how many miles on ground, inside tube, with a rolling vehicle if it were released horizontal-wise in the ground tube?

[@kevinnaber790]

Even if they get close to the equator, the size is still limited to micro satellites and it’s unclear how they will acquire attitude and orbit correction. Also, if the tether or vacuum chamber fail it would be catastrophic for the entire system and surrounding area. There’s a reason why HARP was canceled and they also looked into a centrifugal force, cannon, and the radical Orion nuclear launch systems.

[@TexMex421]

As they are launching rockets, how can it be unclear how they will acquire attitude and orbit correction?

[@DoctorMangler]

Stuartschaffner is exactly right, we will not see this work in our lifetimes. Thunderf00t does a great debunking on spinlaunch.

[@jjbarajas5341]

Thunderfoot might be wrong about this one. Spinlaunch has been successful so far, and this is just the test launcher. Time will tell.

[@DoctorMangler]

@@jjbarajas5341 We'll see! Great sci-fi if nothing else ;)

[@KarmaMechanic988]

Anyone remember reading the millennial project by Marshall Savage back in the 1980s? He proposed a railgun type device on Kilimanjaro, significantly through the atmosphere and nearer the equator. 40 something years ago...

[@KK-ygh]

Brilliant

[@Waitwhat469]

It would be nice, i think, to get the exit tube higher into the sky to reduce the air pressures they have to deal with. Maybe even some kind air stream system to move the air the projectile is going to enter into so that the surrounding fluid is moving with a velocity comparable and the same direction to the projectile.

[@up4open]

The options for where this launches from do present benefits and troubles. If you go high you gain lighting while reducing atmosphere and some amount of necessary velocity.

[@WTFBOOMDOOM]

You're slowly nearing the idea of a railgun :P

[@Waitwhat469]

@@WTFBOOMDOOM It could even be a hybrid system in that case, but I think the idea with this is you can build momentum greater than a straight line rail gun could for a given maximum amount of acceleration, peak power, and height constraints.

[@dionysus2006]

Instead of medium sized satellites they should be concentrating on shooting water into LEO. Water stands up well to g forces and could be retrieved from LEO by a space tug that would collect it and take it to a processing space station. Once there it could be converted to oxygen and hydrogen for rocket propellent or be used by various space stations for drinking water or oxygen. As we get more and more commercial space stations, supplying them will become a viable business.

[@martythemartian99]

I like the way you think. Spin Launch could do many missions, but proving the technology with cheap useful items, like water and maybe building materials (radiation shielding sheets or tiles for example), could be interesting. 🤔🚀🛰🌕

[@gutluckbro9802]

Smart but don't u think it's gonna cost quite a penny to build the infrastructure for this?

[@martythemartian99]

@@gutluckbro9802 (The Joke) A penny? Cool, lets build a dozen. 🤣 (But Seriously) Water on the supply rockets uses up a lot of the available mass. Therefore shooting it into orbit would be cheaper in the long run. Also small Space Tugs are already in development, and said development would benefit greatly from this important use. Hurling supplies up for space stations may be in the plan, but we'll have to wait and see.

[@dionysus2006]

@@gutluckbro9802 Hundreds of millions but there are expendable launches all the time that are over $200M. If they can build the infrastructure for $500M then launch costs should be the lowest available and they should be able to launch multiple times a day. They don't have to contend with cryogenics and weather doesn't matter. This would be a paradigm shift in getting stuff to LEO.

[@Krzysztof_z_Bagien]

Ha! I was just thinking yesterday about that whole Spin Launch thing and wondering what are they doing these days (or if they still do anything at all) :)

[@GlideYNRG]

There was reports of talks here in Australia regarding a base. Was in the news a few weeks ago.

[@Factory400]

I think a couple of people Googled "physics" and quickly realized this concept is not gonna find its way to the real world.

[@T_Mo271]

This concept works much better on an airless body. Solves the sonic boom problem, maintaining vacuum in the spinner, etc. Otherwise it's just a daffy sub-orbital experiment.

[@offroadsnake]

Think that maybe a more Big and reach hypersonic because we only Will use for cargo

[@up4open]

So what? Is it wrong to develop these things now?

[@DanielOlaiDanielsen]

​@@up4open it's unlikely to work as advertised at least. It could make a lot of sense as a lunar or even martian system, but on earth they're getting awfully close to claiming to do something that's physicsally unpossible. If they were developing it as an extraterrestrial system that'd be fine. If they know it's not going to work here but keep taking money from people it's not fine. There's also the possibility that there's people at the top who are genuinely passionate about it and think that they'll solve the issues any day now, not unlike Theranos, where the end will have justified the means.

[@mostfunnestchannel]

It seems like similar forces to a giant gun like in Jules Verne books. It has to reach enough velocity to overcome drag and escape gravity, faster than a bullet, so anything inside has crazy G forces. Can just transport very strong materials.

[@eugenes9751]

It's actually substantially higher. In a gun, you have the length of the barrel to speed up, with the propellant accelerating you the entire time, so the g-force can be distributed across that time frame. With this, they have to first get it to spin at full speed, and only then they can release it. But while it's spinning at full speed, it's getting pulled sideways at over 10,000gs.

[@mostfunnestchannel]

@@eugenes9751 I imagine the deceleration force too when the projectile hits a solid wall of air as it exits the launcher.

[@saumyacow4435]

One obvious engineering issue is that the moment the rocket is launched, the rotor ceases to be balanced and the imbalance creates immense forces. Did they solve this? How? And is this part of the reason for the delay?

[@mylushimada7824]

They dropped some dead weight at the same time in a renforced place of the launcher. Their end goal is to put a second rocket on the other side to make two launch in one go.

[@SimonAmazingClarke]

I really hope that they achieve what they are wanting to achieve. I, personally, can't see this working for numerous reasons, but if they can solve this, go them.

[@mrbyamile6973]

That was my thoughts exactly, I have no confidence this system will work but have absolutely nothing against them. I would be just as happy for them if they can make this system successful.

[@panda4247]

"I really hope that they achieve what they are wanting to achieve" --> you mean raking in the money from investors and then dissolve the company because of "unforseen circumstances"

[@SimonAmazingClarke]

@@panda4247 No. What I mean is I hope they aucees in their launches.

[@panda4247]

@@SimonAmazingClarke I figured you meant that. But I am more skeptical of the end result, therefore I am more cynical about what their motivation really is. Of course, they may believe that it's theoretically possible, but they themselves must know that most probably they will not succeed - but if there are people/institutions who are willing to fund their research and trials, I have nothing against that.. as long as those people are not lured in by false promises

[@Awesomes007]

Well said. Wishing them the best on a really difficult problem. Would love to see all the math on this.

[@Ivytheherbert]

Anything leaving a spin-launcher like that will have a lot of angular momentum, unless corrected for during "precision release" (which is non-viable at the angular velocities required). My guess is they plan to use the aerodynamics of the vehicles to correct this, given how much the vehicles shown in the test flights are visibly wobbling around, but at the huge speeds needed to launch an object into orbit it's hard not to envision them self-destructing on contact with air.

[@smalltime0]

I think the way its done is releasing it slightly out of the position - so the angular momentum is essentially "straight" But this idea is so stupid on so many levels.

[@UninstallingWindows]

You also forget to mention the elephant in the room. The forces affecting the payload. What kind of satellite or rocket engine can withstand such forces. Also, what happens when the centripetal force disappears instantly, at the moment of release? Everything that was compressed due to immense rotational force will uncompress. Also, the payload/rocket must go from being in a vacuum, to instantly being in the atmosphere and then back into vacuum.

[@woah-dude]

i feel like the form factor of the vacuum chamber could pose problems. as well as the fact that even the suborbital test flights were kinda wobbly. I also don't see a penetrable membrane as an effective sealant against a vacuum or near vacuum

[@tamlynburleigh9267]

I think spin launch is a good idea maybe for very small objects, but in my opinion the linear accelerator idea has a better chance, but it’s good to see various ideas being tried because it’s all useful for learning things.

[@zybch]

Like how to scam idiots with a stupid idea that will NEVER achieve practicality. The Brousards are masters of this.

[@ianhawthorn1527]

I've never understood why they think their high tech trebuchet is a better idea than a big ass high tech rail gun. There is comparable acceleration for a device of a given size. And it is a lot easier to scale up a rail gun than it is to scale up a massive rotating thingy in a vacuum chamber.

[@jaqssmith1666]

if they get it working they don't have to replace the rails every three shots.

[@up4open]

Because you weren't on the team building it, wonder why that is?

[@okoproroka1561]

Rail gun has only 70% efficient versus electric engine 98% and rail gun is technically a cannon like normal cannon destroy barrel, so you can shoot dozens of times, but rails will be damaged quickly.

[@EduardoRodriguezRocks]

I am curious, how many miles of a pipe could you use to do the same with much simpler magnetic tech to accelerate a payload in a direct line

[@panda4247]

check you HARP and SHARP. Not magnetic, but more of a conventional cannon...

[@TonyFarley-gi2cv]

You know what monthly quarter you're in or what service direction

[@dionysus2006]

The main advantage of SpinLaunch is they should be able to launch small payloads every few hours because they are not dealing with all the complexities of cryogenic propellants and rocket launches. This makes it a perfect platform for space station consumables resupply.

[@tr4l1975]

Who wants sonic booms every few hours?

[@snapshuttre]

the small satellites need to be that much Gforce resistant to launch on spinlaunch

[@replica1052]

chances of this working is rather slim - fuel for a solid rocket 2nd stage would collapse and a liquid second stage would deform its fuel tanks (a second stage comes higher from a plane )

[@setituptoblowitup]

Pipe dream,no free lunches in physics🍕

[@WuffiePhoenix]

​@@tr4l1975 the rockets are flying away from you so you wouldn't be able to hear the sonic booms, right?

[@robinsonmitchell9995]

"At its full-scale size and with a desired exit speed of 5,000 mph (8,100 kph), [the payload experiences] acceleration, just before the payload is launched, of somewhere between 50,000 and 100,000 gs. Building a payload that can take that much acceleration is more expensive than the fuel it takes to send the payload to orbit. I think this idea is completely impractical for this reason and will never be economically viable on Earth. For launching raw materials from the Lunar surface for usage in space, however, the idea may have some legs.

[@paulmichaelfreedman8334]

Agreed. Simple, proven physics says it loud and clear.

[@aadamawad1647]

Even for lunar stuff though I think a space elevator would make much more sense. Standard Kevlar is strong enough to build a lunar space elevator

[@sciencecompliance235]

@@aadamawad1647 A space elevator would not work on the moon.

[@jackwardrop4994]

Called it 2 years ago. This company has no prayer of getting anything into orbit.

[@t.d.straszheim]

This makes way more sense as an artillery piece

[@jollyroger2012]

Since I first learned about this I could see nothing but issues with the entire concept. I can't believe the company is still going ahead with it. Just wait for the first launch-arm failure when it flings something through the side of the launch errrr circle? at an angle where whatever being launched stays close to the ground and obliterates a target unintentionally. This is besides all the issues with physics, heat, materials, durability of payload etc. I STILL think launching from an aerial platform (airplane, airship whatever) would be the most efficient.

[@philliberatore4265]

Your payload will have to survive acceleration going from stupid-crazy-insane high to zero in milliseconds (microseconds?). What could possibly go wrong?

[@jamesneveaux4892]

Can they seat one PM? Signed All of Canada

[@tropixi5336]

will it be enough to reach space? or would the air drag cause problems?

[@up4open]

Eventually. Yes, but that's true of all things in atmosphere.

[@NonEuclideanTacoCannon]

I question the engineers at the top on this one. They have to know this can't work. There is simply no way they can fling something into orbit. Let's be very generous and say they did build such a machine, the moment the projectile leaves the vacuum chamber, it's going to vaporize. Basically a reverse meteorite. But I would love to watch the attempts! I can't even imagine what it would sound like. I bet it would be spectacular at night.

[@jaqssmith1666]

Just like a bullet or an artillery shell. Don't those silly gunners know their shell just vaporise as soon as they leave the barrel. Explosions down-range are just convenient coincidences. :D

[@up4open]

Your claim literally solves itself by placing this on any available mountain where people cannot live anyway.

[@wally7856]

They are not launching projectiles, they are launching missiles with their own propulsion systems.

[@Neilarmeweak550]

satelites are generally built to be lightweight, and relatively fragile, they are not designed to be put through hundreds if not thousands of Gs. I’m all for new tech but this is somewhat ridicolous. The market they are trying to open is extremely niche, the small sat market has been filled with companies such as Rocketlab and even SpaceX on rideshare mission. This method of launching payloads into orbit, to me anyways seem impractical and really unecessary.

[@yaxleader]

It's far more practical than you think. Satellites already have to account for vibrational loading caused by rockets so they are already built to be resilient. Also, cost of launch would be orders of magnitude lower than even RocketLab for smallsats due to simplicity, limited need for fuel, and smaller rocket components. Yes you have to test and adapt slightly for G-loading, but you can ignore other aspects of space launch that have plagued satellites since the dawn of the space age by eliminating the need for vibe tests. It's more of a paradigm shift than anything. That being said, larger satellites will still need dedicated rockets, but anything up to ESPA-class could easily fly on SpinLaunch.

[@ChrisCooper312]

What about R&D costs? What about construction and maintenance costs? Then you still need energy to drive the centrifuge (even if you use a system to recover energy from the centrifuge after launch it won't be anything like 100% efficient and you're still losing the energy in the projectile). All of this adds up.

[@jeremycrabbe7721]

You forgot to consider the deceleration through the atmosphere that would slow the satellite out of the highly elliptical orbit that causes impact

[@TheWtfnonamez]

This is like developing the trebuchet fifty years after inventing the cannon. Everything this does, can be achieved more easily, and for much less money, with a traditional cannon.

[@up4open]

Then go make a cannon that gets us to space, if you're sure of it.

[@mm-yt8sf]

i'd heard about this spin idea..and i've wondered when the payload is released how does the remaining structure handle the sudden imbalance in the rotating part? it's hard to imagine the thing spinning with only the counterweight left..or even if it came to a sudden halt after release wouldn't that crack the arms? maybe if the payload was flung into the sky at the same time an equal weight on the other side was flung into a hole in the ground (poor thing...)

[@jjbarajas5341]

Currently they smash a counterweight into the ground. Apparently they plan to use a much heavier object in the orbital launcher, that is reusable in the future.

[@noimnotarobotcanubeleiveit7024]

my fix would be using two counter rotating spinners and always launch two sattelites at the same time

[@NackDSP]

SpinLaunch should add Nuclear Fusion, Carbon Capture with storage, nuclear waste disposal, green hydrogen cars and Unicorns to its product line as these are just as likely to work.

[@dionysus2006]

SpinLaunch has already been demonstrated with suborbital launches. Next up is orbital but they need a bigger launcher. You have no imagination

[@JasonHenderson]

Solar freaking spin launch

[@JasonHenderson]

Self driving vacuum tubes to orbit

[@palebluedot7435]

Let’s be fair this is great data collection at least

[@spacexrocks1041]

The Moon. Build it on the Moon, where it's more efficient (1/6 g, no atmosphere). No propellant is used in this propulsion system. You don't have to mine water and purify H2 and 02 - you just need electricity. The ultimate reusability.

[@delfinenteddyson9865]

you wouldn't even need a vacuum chamber

[@stuartschaffner9744]

Yes, this has been suggested in many sci-fi novels.

[@paulmichaelfreedman8334]

It would be more practical to build a maglev monorail to accelerate payloads to ludicrous speeds and just have them slingshot away from the moon's surface at slightly more than escape velocity, which is about 1.9 km/sec or about mach 5.5

[@Pixelsplasher]

Now all they have to do is Spinlaunch the payload to the moon so it can be Spinlaunched from there to low earth orbit.

[@xpt5oo186]

lol🤣@@Pixelsplasher

[@ColinWatters]

I'd like to know how they release the projectile from the end of the spinning arm. The release time (time from commanding release to actual release) must be very consistent/repeatable because small differences would effect the launch angle.

[@poptartmcjelly7054]

This seems like the most inefficient way to launch something. The energy of the rotating arm is not transferred into the projectile, so it remains to spin after the projectile is released. You then need to decelerate this rotating assembly and accelerate it again for the next launch. Something like a trebuchet style energy transfer would be more efficient and it wouldn't require any counterweight on the rotating arm because as soon as it dumped all of its energy into the projectile it would be basically stopped.

[@up4open]

At least you're trying to advance the concept, thank you for that.

[@wally7856]

Regenerative braking would slow the arm down quick and recoup most of the energy as stored electrical energy for the next launch.

[@RealBenAnderson]

Every financial and engineering problem they are facing can be solved by using a rocket instead.

[@up4open]

Nope. The rocket can't solve the fuel and fire need.

[@RealBenAnderson]

@@up4open that isn’t a problem that needs to be solved.

[@up4open]

​@@RealBenAnderson says you. SpaceX is facing a review by some federal fish and game or something now that they added water to the mix. The more options the better, and the tech might end up in other things. Hypersonic is a thing now.

[@RealBenAnderson]

@@up4open says decades of putting things into space.

[@up4open]

@@RealBenAnderson So you're unaware of the effects of rocket fuel on solid boosters, I presume you believe that the fire and ice of SpaceX is the cleanest possible fuel. We have centuries of using the horse, your car is stupid.

[@williamburroughs9686]

You know, this could be great to have on the moon or Mars. It would be great for sending up fuel, supplies or raw materials.

[@NBSV1]

Even if they got it to work it’s a lot of material and resources to get into another planet. For as much effort as this is you could likely setup equipment that could produce fuel for a more normal rocket.

[@asumazilla]

​@NBSV1 You would set up manufacture on moon before building this.

[@timb7775]

The payloads are so small though. To send up any usable amount of fuel it would have to be scaled up significantly.

[@NBSV1]

@@asumazilla Yeah. Just rocket up everything to setup manufacturing on the moon so you can then maybe send small payloads of stuff back a little more efficiently. Would work great for that highly populated moon base they've got up there.

[@williamburroughs9686]

@@NBSV1 Yes and even better is that once we get set up we can then manufacture or grow what we need on the moon. So the people at the moonbase won't need to import everything. Use a 3D printer, grow our own food, recycle water and waste and so on.

[@rileymannion5301]

My main problem with it is when they release the payload the arm is now out of balance by alot, its likely any full size test would shake the arm to bits unless they have a movable mass inside the arm to change the balance within milliseconds

[@orangequill1645]

They use a dummy payload i believe that they launch out at the same time

[@rileymannion5301]

@@orangequill1645 so they have to catch a 200kg weight going at mach 25?

[@orangequill1645]

@@rileymannion5301 Im pretty its heavier and goes slower to match the force exerted by the other one but they can just let that shit crash to the ground

[@rileymannion5301]

@orangequill1645 still, seems like something that after a few launches would need to be rebuilt, whatever the target they choose for the counterweight to hit, sand or loose dirt would work but eventually they would have to pull the counterweights out

[@metaphoricallyspeaking8987]

Would be interesting to see a flatened trajectory.

[@Alorand]

Have they considered a giant high altitude zeppelin launch base?

[@up4open]

at their spin rate the movements in any other direction would be damaging to equipment and stability at launch.

[@mylesgray3470]

This is a great idea… for a different planet with lower escape velocity and less dense atmosphere.

[@SwampCityRadio1974]

That remains of the movie, The Wedding Planet.

[@jojo-wx8kw]

They aren't throwing this thing all the way to orbit. They're basically replacing the first stage of a conventional rocket. Because a rocket needs to carry fuel for its fuel, this saves a lot of fuel. As for the drag induced by the atmosphere, it is actually lower if the launch vehicle goes at Mach 5 rather than Mach 1. In fact, at that speed it would be out of the densest part of the atmosphere before it even has time to heat to dangerous temperatures. Also, a conventional rocket needs to push through the densest part of the atmosphere, which this system doesn't, meaning it needs to carry even less fuel. Of course there are still plenty of issues, but if they can solve them, this might be a cheaper and more efficent way to launch pretty much anything that is not a living organism.

[@HerpaDurpVg]

If you thought Saturn IV failure were spectacular. Wait till you see a payload leave the side of the launcher at Mach 6 on a horizontal trajectory towards a populated area.

[@vibeaimusic]

I dunno - it seems to me like even way more stress on something than a standard rail catapult of some kind would put on the same payload. This 'seems' like it's more compact, but I can't imagine the centrifugal force being generated by launch, and the incredible torque being applied to any payload within at exit. I mean, we have radio towers all over the place - I doubt you would need any bizarre new construction concepts for a catapult long enough for a velocity controlled (ramp-up to control payload crush) launch. That's just an amateur's guess however.

[@GoldenTV3]

I just wonder if it'll be cheaper than simply using the falcon 9 to launch rockets. Maybe this would provide an avenue for more amateur / smaller satellites to launch that wouldn't have the budget to pay for rideshare on Falcon 9. It would probably increase launch times for small satellites as well, compared to waiting weeks or months to catch a Falcon 9 rocket. Just hope the FAA isn't archaic and speeds up their certification process for the growing space industry.

[@Jake1702]

It's going to take them quite a while so they will actually be competing with Starship not Falcon 9.

[@Neilarmeweak550]

The market they are trying to go into has been filled with rocketlab, they are doing something for nothing

[@up4open]

eventually it will be, I think, since electricity can be produced with all kinds of methods.

[@dwmcever]

Better idea might be to spin a disk at orbital escape velocity . It will warp the localized spacetime field and rise off the ground. Yes you read that right.

[@MichaelWinter-ss6lx]

Yes, your right, but it needs a lot more speed, really a lot more. But not travel velocity, its the turning speed. I guess thats what bugged Einstein so much that he had to stumble accross relativity.

[@stevennagley3407]

Spin a disk at orbital escape velocity? Why? This design is interesting, and I say interesting because it can be used to deliver ordinances and weapons… but why do you people believe this is an idea for moving weight into space? Get real it’s just not physical possible…. Cool research project but stop it… but what i will say is, the atmosphere on earth is different then many other planets so there’s little merit will give it

[@benjaminwilson9007]

Thank goodness this project is still in progress.

[@jplflyer]

The reason they're paused is because they ran out of people to scam for funds. I'd love if they prove me wrong, but the stresses on the launch vehicle would be destructive. Even the release into atmosphere is likely to be be destructive. Earth orbital velocity is 30 km per second. Add in the extra speed to reach orbital velocity -- if it's very low (100 km), that's an additional 1.4 km / second. But that is also (for a 100 kg payload) the equivalent energy of 2 tons of tnt. That's just for tossing it up to 100 km and letting it fall back down. Making it somewhere around 50 or 60 tons of TNT to actually reach orbit. In reference, the SR-71 flew at what -- 2000 miles per hour. That's less than 1 km per second. But you want something to go 30 times that fast. And the SR-71 did that at extreme altitude, not down at breathable atmosphere levels. I wonder how fast something has to go before it turns the air into plasma.

[@Brooke95482]

There's a fundamental problem in that the payload has motion components that are the super position of the rotation about the center plus translation caused by the arm. You might think of the payload at the center of the system just rotating and then translate the payload to the end of the arm. When launched the payload disconnects from the arm stopping the translation, but the payload is still rotating. The payload will NOT fly like a rocket, but rather will tumble head over heals.

[@skylark9845]

@stuartschaffner9744 and @DreadX10 make this point in the top comment thread and @rpercifieldjr (below) and I agree. The projectile leaves the launcher with an angular rotation equal to the rotation of the arm. Many can't understand this concept, but imagine a camera tracking the rocket while it rotates inside the vacuum chamber. It has enormous spin and therefore enormous angular momentum. Dissipating that spin/tumble via air fins would be unworkable. Some have said it could be alleviated by releasing the front of the rocket before the back - but that would put super-gigantic angular acceleration on the projectile - even more force than the 200Gs of the centripetal force - forces needed to stop its rotation within milliseconds.

[@Brooke95482]

@@skylark9845 Since this fundamental physics problem was not addressed it seems this was a scam from the get go.

[@alandoak5146]

Perhaps add a 2nd rotational mechanism at the end of the arm to counter-spin the payload. Still seems hard. And if anything goes wrong, everything gets obliterated.

[@up4open]

Fundamental problems often have fundamental answers. Taking the time to solve things isn't a mistake.

[@up4open]

@@Brooke95482 Or maybe you've missed that we have a thing called drag forces which stabilize? Once it's in the air, it's going to face resistance which can do work.

[@killbubbatm5983]

Might be great for moon launches. You could make this more viable with a ramjet on the vehicle but this wont work for straight orbital launches. What satellite could withstand those forces? And the sonic boom...

[@up4open]

Supplies? Satellites that have been built to survive the G's? The question isn't "Are there no problems to solve," the question is why not solve them? Even the internal package hold can be designed to minimize risk. It's a matter of practice in will.

[@mitchellminer9597]

This idea has many problems. Here is just one: Spinning the launch vehicle - call it "Bob" - up to launch velocity takes a certain amount of energy. Call that energy "whoosh". Okay, so the system will need a counterbalance for Bob, which will have to be spun up - whoosh just doubled. The easiest way to deal with counter-Bob is to release it down into a hole, which means that energy will not be reclaimed. The impact will be groundshaking. The arm that holds Bob and counterBob has to be strong, which means heavy, and spinning it up will take energy - call it "whoosh" and "whoosh", roughly. The arm's energy may be recoverable, with enough technology. The whoosh needed to throw Bob is about one-fourth of the energy required for each launch. Factor that into the fuel savings. There's hella more problems. There's also people who dismiss all the problems, and some of them have money. That's incentive enough for the project. It doesn't have to be workable.

[@kantoros]

A lot of people are skeptical about the project and I get why, it seems too far fetched and like another techno scam, but honestly I think it could work. They've already solved tons of seemingly impossible things, not on paper or with equations but actually physically built them, they have a testing facility with enormous vacuum chambers, they've built the super fast shutter doors, they're testing every part to make sure it survives the 20 000 Gs of acceleration, and it does! Not saying that it'll definitely work but I'm a fan

[@kurosumomo]

they really haven't solved much if anything at all. They've managed to build a sub orbital launch platform based on centrifugal forces, which I guess can be called an achievement. But the height and speed they achieved is roughly the same to a 155mm howitzer firing straight up with a full propellant charge, ~9000m (30.000ft) at a muzzle velocity of 1000m/s. So 2% of force that is needed to get to orbit, now they need to find the other 98% (and they wont), so they basically demonstrated an unstable projectile being flung to 9km high. In general, this idea solves very little issues with delivery of payloads into orbit, we already have small rockets that carry small payloads, and they are cheap compared to the big rockets. This, to me, seems like an investment scam at best.

[@DarwinsChihuahua]

SpinLaunch is aerospace snake oil. There are too many problems to make this a viable technology.

[@fgregerfeaxcwfeffece]

But they are very good at fooling people into believing their systems aren't so far of that the "prototypes" actually prove exactly nothing.

[@user-vh7ki7xu7o]

It’s just a phallic shaped giant smoking device. I feel like only a child would think it would work. Let me spin something so fast it flies into space!

[@up4open]

Your chihuahua is an insulting little Runt, Mr. Darwin. Needs to be returned to the dog pound.

[@user-vh7ki7xu7o]

@@up4open butt hurt much?

[@randybentley2633]

Wherever they build it, an arid area would have less humid air and would provide an ideal environment for solar arrays to be set up to sustainably feed this beast.

[@ZombieFartDev]

yeeting stuff into space, nice company slogan

[@baarni]

It would be good to see this company succeed but I don’t think this method of reaching orbit is economically viable… Even though they have demonstrated the system with a small prototype launch vehicle they haven’t so far been able to design the rocket propelled vehicle capable of withstanding the immense g forces imparted by the launch process… The next step will be to file for bankruptcy once the investor funds have been exhausted…

[@kennethferland5579]

Right after the founders and initial investors sell all their shares.

[@baarni]

@@kennethferland5579 I bet the people at the top of this company are pulling pretty huge pay checks.

[@soul-candy-music]

It's a ridiculously cool piece of engineering. I'll always celebrate the pursuit of 1st-principles-thinking, but it's healthy to be skeptical about EVERY concept until it's proven.

[@matthewluttrell9413]

Can someone explain to me how they're counter balancing it once the payload detaches? Cool, you can spin up to really high speeds in a partial vacuum. You can time the release perfectly. You might be able to make all the systems on the payload withstand the forces. You can balance everything to spin it up to that speed, but what happens when it's released?? Can the whole rotating assembly just take that imbalance?

[@SteveFye]

Apparently, there's a counterbalance which will also disengage at the exact moment the payload does. The counterbalance will have more mass and be located closer to the access of rotation, meaning that it will be moving slower than the payload when it's released. This is one of the few things that I think will actually work for the system. Otherwise, there are way too many other obstacles to overcome to make this a viable launch platform.

[@NOM-X]

Seriously. Spin Launch is in my eyes a waste of time. All that to send up a muffler sized satellite into orbit. Something that size can be rideshared on a F9, for a fraction of the cost and 1/4 the amount of work putting the satellite in its correct orbit. They should just join SpaceX and help develop. It could be used for other things like missile defense. But all that for something so small is just not worth it. Yes it uses no engine lift at sea level, but again.. all that to send a microwave into barely orbit. Thanks for another great episode! - NOM

[@s1l3ntw1]

Actually... this might be a good test bed for developing an orbital launch system, launching from the Moon or even Mars. Another user commented that they should be sending water to LEO for processing into fuel. They could do the exact same thing on the Moon, either sending up ice or manufactured fuel which isnt as g-sensitive as electronics. It would be a handy fallback option when the Earth orbital launch system inevitably fails.

[@paulmichaelfreedman8334]

@@s1l3ntw1 The ludicrous G-forces created by the spinning is the killer, not the gravity. Agreed, the G forces would be less because they'd have to spin the payload less fast, but 1/6th of 100,000 is still nearly 17,000 G. It would be cheaper and more viable just to build a 5 km long maglev rail on the moon and have payloads accelerated linearly at a "modest" 100Gs and tilted up slightly as it leaves the monorail so it can spiral away from the moon at slightly more than escape velocity, which on the moon is between mach 5 and 6. Once at the right altitude a small thruster can slow the craft down to put it into a stable orbit.

[@s1l3ntw1]

@paulmichaelfreedman8334 I hear what you are saying, and would be keen to see the feasibility comparison between a maglev system and this spin launch system. I guess my comment was more just trying to incidate that this system would be much better suited to a low gravity, minimal atmosphere situation (eg the Moon) as a lot of the downsides start to go away (eg lower escape velocity so no need to hit such high g's, no atmosphere so drag can actually be neglected, no need to seal the chamber so no worries about a fancy airlock system ), etc.

[@paulmichaelfreedman8334]

@@s1l3ntw1 I understand, but 17,000 g's... hard to build something capable of withstanding such forces. each gram of matter in the object would experience a force of 170 Newtons or every kilogram adds 17 tons. That still a lot, although less impossible than 100,000, that's very true.

[@roderick.t]

“…very little updates from the Company.” = the actual physics is catching up 😂

[@kennethferland5579]

Ideally people realized this stupid scam could never work as an effective launch system and stopped giving them money.

[@stevecummins324]

Rather than a drum, and arm. Use a toroidal chamber, and hydrostatic bearings to keep launch carriage orbiting during spin up.

[@bio-techlarry9602]

When I first heard about this launch system, I went: What? Even with a high school physics class under my belt, I don't see how this can work. Even with very small projectiles. My suggestion would be a very large Rail Gun type of launcher. It may have a better chance of success. The laws of physics must be fully understood when evaluating the design, building and using any kind of machine. Good luck.

[@dutchangle229]

I'm glad you have enough common sense to see the centrifuge won't work. The rail gun has its own problems though. You can shoot nearly horizontal, which means a lot more atmosphere to travel through than a vertical launch. Alternatively, you need a curve at the end of the barrel to turn the vehicle upward. Like that patented gun, for shooting around corners. I trust your common sense will be able to figure that one out. Cheers, mate.

[@bio-techlarry9602]

@@dutchangle229 Exactly.

[@up4open]

I guess you're right, they've had no successes because they all came into this as chicken fry attendants from KFC Djibouti.

[@TheBooban]

Better use as long range artillery. Get DoD funding.

[@TheGalacticIndian]

Sell it to Ukraine💙💙💛💛

[@UncleKennysPlace]

We have such things now, that are portable. Any range from 100 meters to, well, anywhere on earth.

[@MrWeedWacky]

spinlaugh, will never get to orbit.

[@paulmichaelfreedman8334]

Didn't believe that since day 1. Pipe dream by people who don't have a full grasp of newtonian physics. But at least they got to live the dream. Now it's time to wake up.

[@martythemartian99]

The car will never replace the horse. SpaceX will never land a rocket. Never is a long time but some people can't see far past their own nose. 🤣

[@MrWeedWacky]

@@martythemartian99 and some people are uneducated to the point they think they are geniuses...

[@martythemartian99]

@@MrWeedWacky Hard to tell if your last comment was an accusation or a confession. 😉

[@MrWeedWacky]

@@martythemartian99 I do not doubt you would have a hard time understanding a simple sentence of 13 words.