Throwing Artillery Shells Into Space

#shorts Discover how SpinLaunch is transforming space travel by launching satellites using kinetic energy instead of traditional rocket fuel consumption.
Join our KZbin channel by clicking here: bit.ly/3asNo2n
Find us on Instagram: bit.ly/3PM21xW
Find us on Facebook: bit.ly/3t2Huvb
Find us on Twitter: bit.ly/3wQfXzA
Find us on TikTok: bit.ly/3wNsBOu
Get the latest stories: interestingeng...
Support IE for high-quality journalism: interestingeng...

[@mohammedgt8102]

If your satellite can survive this, it's space ready.

[@HarshThe119]

if you can survive this, you're space ready.

[@Kashur_lofi]

It's called cyclotron method basically it's for a Small charged particles like electrons and protons etc by using electric and magnetic field to gain high speed

[@Tailspin80]

They would have to pot the entire satellite in resin to stop it ripping apart.

[@GusCraft460]

Rocket launches are rough too. There’s a lot more shaking.

[@Letsgobrandon827]

Gunna catch that road runner finally

[@locobob]

Let’s fix the title: this is a company that WISHES to throw satellites into space. *** EDIT **** I want to preface that I'm not saying this is impossible or anything like that. I am highly skeptical of their plan, but I'm not here to rain on their parade. It's just that the title of the video is worded in a way that implies this is a company that is successfully launching payload into space using this technology, which is not the case.

[@effigy42]

Yeah because its impossible hahahahaha

[@Tailspin80]

@@effigy42 Right technology. Wrong planet. Need a much smaller one with no atmosphere.

[@pete5405]

yeah and... it's still using a rocket???

[@Raven5431]

​@pete5405 less weight. Same concept as useing an airplane to lift the shuttle up to altitude before disengaging and useing the lighter amount of rocket fuel on board to finish the journey.

[@pete5405]

@@Raven5431 Right, but still, the „thrown“ object is not in space, or even in orbit

[@Jeras_sareJ]

Now they just need to figure out how to make a solid steel "shell" function as a satellite.

[@GigachadsUnited]

Dude the video explained it, the satellite is inside.

[@Jeras_sareJ]

@@GigachadsUnited There is no piece of technology that can withstand the G force this device would place upon it other than a solid piece of steel. Hence my above comment.

[@MaximilianonMars]

Ok Mr orbital engineer, material scientist, guy who knows everything. Liar.

[@BillClinton228]

I'm sure the super big brain genius Elons Musk will figure it out🤣

[@SirNobleIZH]

​@Jeras_sareJ most satellites are already insanely g-hardened. Real Engineering has a great video on this. They brought up the example where a capacitor was sticking up from a circuit board, and apl the testong employees thought it would quickly flop over. It didn't. It was just fine Turns out high g's don't matter much when there's not a lot of mass to accelerate

[@nunyabidness976]

"Throws satellites into space using no fuel" "Uses a 2 stage rocket"

[@cowmath77]

They didn’t state if the 2nd stage uses fuel, clearly the first doesn’t. Could be an ordnance discharge.

[@fernandomarques5166]

​​@@cowmath77for it to be described as a rocket it needs propelant otherwise it would just be a discarding sabot round

[@Invisibilitylock]

“We fire the whole bullet, thats 65% more bullet per bullet” - cave johnson

[@brantshettron8076]

😂😂💀

[@detective0532]

Good stuff.... Good stuff.

[@MayankSharma-vz5of]

And 75% of the time it works every time

[@Bond.JamesBond00]

That way you harvest more satellite per bullet

[@Boliboli3]

Good ’ol Portal-reference ❤

[@nickgardner6340]

How many G's do you want your satellite to experience? Them: Yes.

[@mstew8386]

made me spit out my coffee rofl !

[@VedatMiller]

Ahahah great comment 😂

[@alpercetin3070]

There shall be no g forces effected to the satellite. G force is depends on the acceleration, not speed.

[@johnmanalo3236]

@@alpercetin3070 and how do you think the it would get to speed

[@alpercetin3070]

@@johnmanalo3236 it could just accelerate slower. Of course there is no acceleration that doesnt feel g forces. But slower the acceleration is lower the g.

[@HellaNGMusic]

"15 000 gallons of fuel... Per second." "That is... Without a doubt... A LOT." *Yeah, no shit Sherlock😂*

[@jasonbrogdon1]

It is quite wrong. That would require like 100 olympic swimming pools worth and the rockets would be hundreds of feet tall and wide to hold it. Throw an AI voice on and let's create some content folks. Any idiot can do it apparently..

[@Thegoldenaerobar2]

Air casually knocking it 0.01 cm off its precisely calculated path:

[@LordSandwichII]

It would still have rockets.

[@SR_73]

New York honest reaction : 💀 (why always NY, Hollywood needed some "realistic" movies)

[@SlingBlade933]

Or they throw it right as a plane is flying above and boom 💥

[@xm4366_]

​@@SlingBlade933 very unlikely but not impossible.Planes are heck fast

[@joshhadley9445]

Oops, it released it .00001 seconds early, time to build a new spin launch...

[@matthewedwards6454]

Yup. And they plan to have dozens of these running 24/7 on a launch site.

[@timrosencrans7955]

The energy in a 5000mph launch vehicle would obliterate the facility.

[@_MaxHeadroom_]

​@@matthewedwards6454Where did you hear they'll be running 24/7? Even if they had unlimited contacts they still would need time to install everything and prepare between launches

[@_MaxHeadroom_]

@ZiegPride Alright what does running 24/7 mean though? Like, they'll be constantly manned and worked on in shifts continuously?

[@_MaxHeadroom_]

@ZiegPride Jeez Louise how many contracts do they plan on having where they would need dozens of them in continuous operation? Even SpaceX facilities that have the most contracts don't do that. Is it because they're expecting a wave of new customers in the low end price range?

[@_Stormfather]

"By using the power of velocity" Ahhh yes, as opposed to all those rockets that get to space with zero velocity

[@wedmunds]

He meant “by the power of inertia”

[@_Stormfather]

@@wedmunds I'm aware. I'm making fun of what he said.

[@FormulaWun]

AI

[@JD_tcb]

"But how exactly do u *throw* it into space??" "With a rocket." "Na, but like.. if u don't wanna do that tho?

[@fvlse_]

🤣

[@decract]

"Spinlaunch, a company that literally spin" I can't stop laughing 😭😭

[@fluffyboi9545]

Wii remotes getting thundercunted at the tv after I forgot to put the strap on

[@ddfann]

The media never seem to scrutinise stories like this because they all reported it as this amazing advance, when people in the know were debunking it immediately.

[@Sumowning]

Not to mention, even if it were an easier way of doing it. The question should be, should we be doing so? With the sheer amount of space junk we've thrown in our orbit

[@thisisashan]

It is theoretically possible, but we aren't there yet. You would simply need a sabot around the satellite and enough energy to propel it. 3.29 x 10 Joules per kilogram, or about 9.1 kWatt hours per Kilogram of energy. To put something in low earth orbit.

[@harrisonbs]

Thunderfoot looked at this ages ago. He showed some major issues with it. You can see it here as it breaks through the seal. You can see the projectile isn't going up straight. It has lateral movement.

[@Shadowkey392]

Actually this is real. SpinLaunch has been throwing rockets into space for a while now and this is exactly how they do it. Of course, it can only be done with very small rockets carrying very small payloads, but that’s not a problem for SpinLaunch because their business is in small satellite launches.

[@ddfann]

@@Shadowkey392 Those launches are sub orbital what ever that means. They have yet to launch anything into space, successfully

[@lessonslearned6760]

They fail to mention that it does not work.

[@PhilosopherGaming]

Why not?

[@tyjohnston5889]

The earth is flat. ​@@PhilosopherGaming

[@hydra5758]

🤡@@tyjohnston5889

[@kimoandrews5802]

and never will...

[@DannyBoYfutube]

It fails to mention any backstory to people like me who never even heard of this!!

[@mariachicz5075]

rocket starts at slow speed and then increase speed to stay at orbit, where it needs very fast speed. this ... starts at very fast speed, then slow and eventually on the orbit height, it wont have any speed and drops back.

[@swatrkd]

“Why is it raining artillery shells?”

[@jynx2501]

"Using the power of velocity." This is the guy who never helped on group projects in school.

[@AT-9777]

?

[@barackoli5930]

@@AT-9777It’s using the power of angular momentum, not velocity.

[@realityobservationalist7290]

Not a guy... AI

[@justadummy8076]

@@realityobservationalist7290who do you think gave the AI the prompts?

[@realityobservationalist7290]

@@shivendra3175 , It's getting way out of control. KZbin should care about this because shorts are a major part of their "addiction platform". If they don't the feeds will soon be 100% AI and people will just tune out completely.

[@vmb371]

*NASA:* So, how did the satellite launch go? *Company:* Perfect *NASA:* Great, so where's our satellite? *Company:* *Everywhere*

[@Mattipedersen]

Company: You paid us to launch a Satellite into space. Well, you now have several.

[@Supxrcharged]

Lmao this needs more likes

[@mike41062]

😂😂😂 such a good comment! this comment truly made me burst out laughing- just something about it, man..

[@chrisw5742]

@@mike41062 SPACE IS FAKE and so is NASA .....

[@chetgreene6165]

😂😂😂

[@atulgupta6515]

If you spin it fast enough to reach space ie escape velocity, even if you ignore air drag which would be massive as it is a function of velocity, the g force experienced by the projectile would be approximately 6.272 Million G. It would be enough to get into low earth orbit possibly considering drag but there no material exists to take the kind of forces involved here. Context : all moving objects require acceleration to change direction even if the speed remains same.

[@cherylmillard2067]

Where did you go to university?

[@MM3Soapgoblin]

The complete lack of basic physics knowledge in the comments is hilarious and depressing.

[@Soggy__302]

In reality the company is actually launching the investor's money out of that thing

[@Mattipedersen]

It looks like that for a reason. Now the can literally piss their money away.

[@nateg08]

​@@MattipedersenI was wondering if it was just me. I was looking for any comment at all about its shape lol

[@thedelacruz]

🎉😂

[@PANZERFAUST90]

investors'* I guarantee there is more than one.

[@Soggy__302]

@@PANZERFAUST90 plot twist: they were only launching that particular investor's money for some reason. Nah, you're correct, it's a typo lol

[@saikatraj]

Few years later: Let's throw humans to mars

[@adamstampley7207]

'Murica

[@clebmedia]

They'll probably beat Elon there at this rate

[@gabriellelis1606]

"You can’t just shoot a hole into the surface of Mars"

[@Chickendeveloping2023]

​@@adamstampley7207 English translation 'kill me

[@chemicalaffair.]

​@@Chickendeveloping2023what a coincidence😂

[@OffensiveJestr]

This looks like one of them 80s toys where you put in the rip cord and yank it out as fast as you can only to see that toy go maybe 10 feet before crashing into a wall.

[@tcfightertoo]

POV you’re the person inside of the rocket: 😵‍💫😵‍💫😵‍💫

[@etgha]

"using the power of velocity" like a normal rocket just fuckin sits there and then teleports

[@nuep9651]

Yeah, when i hear this is like wtf..

[@delayedcreator4783]

it burns fuel for its power, this doesn't

[@doncaudle6245]

Like a normal rocket uses thousands of fucking pounds of fuel, this just fucking sits there and throws the fucking rocket into space.

[@divat10]

I think they mean that this technology stores all of it's energy in the velocity of the satellite. Where in normal rockets they use chemical energy

[@matematicoschibchas]

Yeah, screw acceleration.

[@Hoodiemastery]

Finally I can launch a tiny pebble into space without paying 50 mil in fuel

[@AdministrativeReload]

No you can't. This thing has never achieved orbit velocity, and never will. It's just a scam to get government grants and bilk investors out of money.

[@BarryObaminable]

but if you can target it, it would allow you to continually rain fire on another country.

[@ThePastaDude_b657]

Imagine using that in a war 💀

[@retrorunner984]

Solar powered artillery?

[@ironheavenz]

You'll instead be paying 50mil in energy + repair costs after that thing blows itself up when trying to spin your pebble up to escape velocity

[@ohheyitspaul]

The biggest issue with this that they hadn't fully solved is keeping the system balanced after the release of the projectile. The RPM of this system is insane and if it becomes unbalanced it'll tear itself apart

[@wilsonvinas5906]

No, the biggest problem is the massive amounts of g force this thing produces. The laws of physics makes this impossible

[@muzzandmich]

Not just balance, but G forces will crush the payload before it even leaves the machine.

[@jamil1985]

Chuck Norris just Throws it casually in space. That's how you save fuel. 😊

[@TheDragonBloom]

"We saved $50 million in fuel costs but DESTROYED a billion dollar satellite."

[@bingobongo1615]

I was about to write - I am sure its possible with enough propellant to shoot something into space with a huge cannon (largest WW2 cannons reached the stratosphere) but the bigger issue is to keep stuff from vaporizing / breaking if you have to initially speed it up enough to go all the way to space…

[@couchpotatoes5158]

You really don’t think the engineers can design around that? What makes you think you know more about this than aerospace engineers with PhDs?

[@BillyBigRiggin359]

There are missiles smarter than you that move 3 times the speed of sound and theyre able to hold it together. Im sire they can apply the same tech to satellites

[@antonzhdanov9653]

​@@bingobongo1615Well, shells are accelerated under tremendous strain in the barrel, while proposed system is kinda just spin it. Still axial strain and especially during release one should be tremendous. Though if an actual satellite situated closer to centre of spinning it can actually work

[@OnceShy_TwiceBitten]

I mean, I bet someone said the same thing about the moron in the sub... a large business with lots of rich people and engineers. and look what happened. @@couchpotatoes5158

[@JandiFX]

*US Military:* Can we use this horizontally? 🤔 💀💀💀

[@Brian-rn2wx]

Rail gun

[@JakeRohde52]

​@eabroham7937umm no it's not. You can't shoot something this large as fast out of a barrel with gunpowder....

[@ih8stuff3]

Or vertically down?

[@MuslimsAreEvil626]

As if other militaries don’t create weapons.

[@tmcbride9435]

Way ahead of you bud 😂

[@solastalgia440]

Satellites for funding, artillery for application.

[@jamesmbutler]

I imagine launching humans this way would give new meaning to the term "spam in a can."

[@R10T_08]

Bro: “why’d you flinch I barely even threw it How bro threw it:

[@tylerschoen5643]

Always

[@ABlueThing]

"How do we save money on fuel" "Just yeet the rocket"

[@ShineLikeMoonlight]

Why so underrated 😂

[@destineennicholasgallagher3315]

Cause us country yee yee folks ain't seen this yet 😂😂😂

[@ssj2camaro21]

No yeet

[@MrDjsmooth87]

😂😂😂

[@user-iu6sd8su3e]

How much fuel does it take to power it? “About 15,000lbs per second”

[@delmanpronto9374]

the guy that thought of such an idea first was assassinated.

[@christianloria329]

we are highly advanced in tech, can we go back to the moon now? no still cant 😂

[@brinthstacey]

"they use 15k gallons of fuel" "Oh ok" "Per second" "SAY WHAT NOW?!"

[@bendobbing7015]

Starship burns around 40,000lbs of fuel per second with 33 Raptor 2 engines, it's difficult to even fathom aha

[@phennexion]

Yet we're the ones who can't have plastic straws

[@sarab89hj]

I dont know why this made me giggle so much @@phennexion

[@Saltshaker2016]

Me thinks the rocket would be a wee bit bigger if that math added up.

[@negativeindustrial]

@@phennexion In blue shitholes maybe. There’s plenty of plastic straws where I chose to live.

[@oysterjamivxx]

In other words, everything we launch from now must not only be space proof but also be able to withstand the 750 g. generated by the spinning before it gets 'thrown'

[@digimaks]

and lunch and breakfast too!

[@Jonathan-3333]

😂

[@timrosencrans7955]

That isn’t super hard, but the problem is you have to set it up to survive that much force laterally and vertically. Laterally during the spin up and vertically when it hits the atmosphere at Mach 5 plus.

[@YagamiKou]

it's actually upto about 10,000 G but it's also not as big a problem as people think electronics are great in consistent high g forces Tim is right, the shock from the atmosphere is going to do alot more damage

[@lusoverse8710]

Satellites into space with this one simple trick NASA doesn't want you to know about!

[@superpaperfoxhatesNSFW]

probably it doesnt work

[@treenutlee6105]

I think they fail to mention that energy has to be used to get it to that velocity anyway... This is literally the same fallacy of electric vehicles, the energy requirement isn't reduced it's just transferred from where it's being used...

[@hommuside]

And yet they have not - to date - ever thrown a satellite into space

[@MineStrongth]

Didn't they run out of money too? Thought I heard something like that recently.

[@rickorr2181]

@@MineStrongth It actually failed because it was a stupid idea that would never work. The object being launched in a full sized version would never survive the G forces created. A full sized launcher would destroy itself as well.

[@FundyisleLegacy]

Yeah but a handful of people got rich off the idea, mission successful

[@MineStrongth]

@@rickorr2181 Cool? Nothing to do with what I asked, but thanks for sharing.

[@brandonshelton7692]

​@@MineStrongth no chill. They answered your question. It was a stupid idea and investors turned ass cheeks and walked, which is why you heard they ran out of funding. Life is better if you don't walk around like a snide ass mfer all the time.

[@kingcosworth2643]

And it utilises unicorn farts to spin up the centrifuge

[@patricknintemann924]

It uses velocity

[@hakan8997]

They want us to belive that gravity is real, and forget that centrifugal force exist!

[@celxoirealyx]

In the end we went back to throwing things just like our ancestors.

[@racenuke]

“Back in 82’ I could throw a pigskin a quarter mile.”

[@CELTICSAVAGE32]

How much you wanna bet I could throw a satellite over them mountains?

[@CELTICSAVAGE32]

**demonstrates throwing prowess by throwing a steak at someone's face**

[@noahwilkey4318]

Thank you for this comment 😂

[@josephrheaume8386]

did a guy named Al Bundy catch them for four touchdowns?

[@randomhero5]

HAHA! They should’ve named it Uncle Rico.

[@LovleyLemonade]

This thing should be renamed to: The Yeet Cannon

[@ohalee-nkwochachijioke7624]

😂😂😂😂

[@mikek4288]

The Yeetinator 5000

[@Mae_Dastardly]

The hi point c9

[@AbsoluteTiger]

The space yeeter was my choice of name for it!

[@JanFWeh]

It's not a yeet cannon. A cannon would make more sense than this thing.

[@spencerroberts1770]

Power of velocity - spoken by a true salesmen who knows zero engineering.

[@jakee8704]

This is literally straight out of “the poor man’s James Bond “ books

[@jakee8704]

It was a BB gun that used this same concepts and old metal scotch tape can, and a motor mounted in the middle

[@a2zfunbegins273]

Nasa:- we want soft landing. Spinlaunch:- first it have to survive hard launch.

[@manjubeli]

😂

[@bl8388]

New chef:- How can I scramble a BUNCH of eggs even faster? Spin Launch:- Me!

[@a2zfunbegins273]

@@bl8388 you are talking about ostrich eggs. ryt? 😂

[@bl8388]

@@a2zfunbegins273 Those too.

[@ayushdebbarma7585]

What a dumb comment

[@MikMoen]

The kind of kinetic Hell that thing would unleash if it became unbalanced.

[@olmostgudinaf8100]

Not to mention the G force the payload would experience, even if it by some miracle worked.

[@ricksandoval1187]

Just do it behind them mountains and have control center on the other side of the mountain. Create tunnel for shortcut.

[@bl8388]

​@@ricksandoval1187Mountains won't protect against a modern trebuchet

[@codywaite3765]

The tip spinning has to be going atleast 25,000 MPH. absolutely terrifying

[@mrmaniac3]

I think the detachment/launch does exactly that, so I wonder how they solve that problem

[@nomadryder4377]

Did it make it up there guys? Oh hell run its coming back down...... ..😂

[@joncarlosavala8161]

I remember when science channels were ran by actual scientists that knew what they were talking about.

[@TheDsRequiem]

Theyre just ai now

[@axeman2638]

lol "actual scientists" believe nonsense like dark matter and black holes and that cow farts are causing the seas to boil.

[@curtisberg3028]

No you don’t cause it was never the case

[@joncarlosavala8161]

@@curtisberg3028 it was, they’re just underground now. Because of channels like these.

[@cjadventures8840]

⁠@@joncarlosavala8161Get off yt shorts and keep an open mind.

[@keithchristner4522]

The F-15 with a ICBM strapped to it was a more practical concept.

[@cardboard9124]

True, we should go back to that

[@sangrety]

brather brather ..​@@partyroekel9426

[@asinatrafanatic2697]

When I was younger I always wondered why they didn't just strap a space ship on the top of an airliner and then when they get high enough they didn't just let the space ship ignite and head on up! Years later, I found out they did do that!

[@riley_ae86]

Just make all our old F15A's into satellite launcher

[@keithchristner4522]

@@riley_ae86 upgrade a few of the old A variants into drones to carry small rockets to launch satellites is a good idea.

[@barreldreamz7852]

I don't understand how they think they're going to control the accuracy of it when they're creating centrifugal force but they needed to go straight up in one direction!?!? 🤯🤯🤤

[@Mrgasman1978]

Imagine the centrifugal force that thing has to sustain in order to get the rocket into space.

[@codyaevans]

The centrifugal forces would be upwards of something like 10k Gs, so I’m reasonably skeptical about this launching anything but an inert lump of tungsten.

[@Nauda999]

And that is not the worst of it, even rod of tungsten hitting air at ground level at mach 7+ would melt in seconds. Not to mention the same forces would act on the rotating mechanism.

[@dianapennepacker6854]

We've been making electronics that can withstand a ton of Gs since the first proximity fused rounds during WWII! That used vacuum tube tech no less. So that probably isn't the issue for a satellite designed with this in mind. The issue is what is better. 20gs for a split second or sustained 10gs? (Using these numbers as an example) I say this as according to some KZbinrs like Thunderf00t? A space gun might be a better solution due to this reason. This thing is putting a ton of Gs for a long time on something. I personally can't stand that mofo. So I hope he is wrong. Yet there are others too who did the math, and they could be right. And quite honestly sending things to space using a SPACE gun just sounds cooler.

[@Nauda999]

@@dianapennepacker6854 there are at least three problems. 1) the spinner needs to have vacuum that can be rapidly sealed off while have a big spiny thing doing the spinning 2) the spinner has to be able to take these loads more than once. 3) the payload will hit air close to sea level going 7 or even mach 10 , even tungsten rod at mach 7 melts in seconds, main reason navy gave up on rail guns. This spin launcher could be good if you want molten something spread around most of the world, but not to send it into the space in one piece.

[@user-knhgvg454g]

​@@dianapennepacker6854you are clueless.

[@idehenebenezer]

TO EVERYONE IN THIS CHAT: *THE JUDGEMENT OF GOD IS DRAWING NIGH.* REPENT TODAY AND GIVE YOUR LIFE TO JESUS TO ESCAPE ETERNAL DAMNATION!,

[@78mitch]

The engineering masterpiece of Wile E. Coyote

[@crisrobinson3092]

Truly a great American engineer. My first introduction to improvised construction and problem solving as a kid. ACME drones providing everything on demand the whole time.

[@TheAnomaly01010]

Holy crap that’s funny

[@craigbryant3191]

A company that *WOULD LIKE* to throw satellites into orbit. They've never come close.

[@mats7492]

As long as I get a „phooomp“ sound I’m alright with this

[@edwatts9890]

"All you have to do is design your satellite to withstand 958,000 g and 380,000⁰ F!"

[@pralayaryan]

thars what the SHELL is for, to protect the satalite from G and temperature

[@edwatts9890]

@@pralayaryan"Welcome! You must be the Engineering Department's FNG!"

[@777dragonborn]

Most satellites are sent up with ballons . Like the The alleged Chinese one that lost its elevation .

[@saladtnogs]

How exactly will a shell protect against the G's? ​@@pralayaryan

[@user-dm8kz8ul8h]

@@pralayaryanput whatever you want around it😂 you’re dealing with G force

[@aperson9430]

US military: how can we weaponize this.

[@jmbman]

They shouldn't?

[@aperson9430]

@jmbman they shouldn't. But are you honestly saying they wont?

[@detrockcity3]

The US Military is every bit the fucking menace the Founding Fathers warned it would be.

[@jasonwu5758]

king david did it thousands years ago。

[@briliankamil4594]

The idea of hurling something to enemy is always appealing indeed.. A giant rotating catapult..

[@RandomBoar]

This company is going to throw it so hard it breaks other satellites

[@Daking4496]

Elon: I wanna give space the middle finger... Architect: I got you, bro...

[@conniephillips3786]

Well why don't they just build a giant slingshot using giant sized bungee cords

[@ironheavenz]

That's probably more viable than this...

[@Tommytakanawa]

​@@ironheavenzno. It isn't. The slingshot would have to the most massive contraption ever created. This is the compact version.

[@timb.9224]

hahaha ya, just like Wile E. Coyote !!!

[@Jack2000xxx]

just make a tall ladder

[@chuauzikpuia4658]

@elonmusk

[@lennynull-funf-zehn5416]

"Average Rocket" -shows starship, the biggest rocket ever made...

[@fubartotale3389]

Tallest rocket ever made, the Saturn lV could carry a payload 50% heavier than the Starship.

[@flipz8632]

Is it opposite day?​@fubartotale3389

[@fubartotale3389]

@@flipz8632 Yes, it is.

[@flipz8632]

@@fubartotale3389 thought so:saturn v 111 meters (363 feet) Starship system 397 feet 121 meters Saturn V capacity 311,152 lb (141,136 kg) Starship max capacity 551,155 lb (249,999.7) kg

[@fubartotale3389]

@@flipz8632 Yes, on opposite day... I believe your figures are correct (incorrect)

[@UnequivicaLEE]

They should commission The Incredible Hulk for his services and track record of throwing objects into space.

[@Just_A_Simple_guy]

"power of velocity" wow

[@Ralphinsc]

NASA: exists.... Spinlaunch: Have you ever considered just yeeting it up there?

[@AzulDevin6880]

I can already imagine the yeet sound effect building up before it makes the “YAET” sound

[@pencari17]

15 years ago: NASA: Exists SpaceX: Let's build rocket that can lands vertically to be reused

[@luispatino3180]

YEET YEET!

[@davidmoore5004]

Then the satellites end up on blimps because the earth is flat

[@muskheadroom]

Underrated 😂😂😂

[@r.g.8167]

Rocket consumes 15000 gallons of fuel mixture per second? Your math ain’t mathin’, bro. Falcon 9 first stage burns for about 160 - 180 seconds , depending on a payload. Stage 1 and stage 2 hold approximately 65000 gallons of fuel mixture combined. I ain’t no rocket scientist, but even I can see that 4.5 seconds of flight time is going to be the shortest space flight ever.

[@Nick-wn1xw]

9,500 lbs (4,300 kilos) per second. Just over 1,138 gallons per second. He was way off.

[@r.g.8167]

⁠@@Nick-wn1xwI’ve seen numbers on falcon 9 somewhere, that at full tilt it was burning as efficient as 3200lb per second

[@joelheinaman4616]

The funny thing is I know about spinlaunch. It's not seconds it takes much longer to get to speed than a rocket. It would put larger gforces on the payload than a rocket, and for MUCH longer. This idea was DOA.

[@zhituha]

Who cares! WE NEED MORE TRAFFIC!

[@pieppy6058]

@@joelheinaman4616it would put larger g forces on the object compared to a gun of the same length. Just, use a gun. It’s literally a tube, that’s it.

[@mariokirov7165]

15k gallons ... thats 56775 liters .... imagine if your car fuel efficiency is 10 liter per 100km at avarage then you can cover 567 750km. I'm driving for 12 years and still haven't covered that much distance and the rocket burns that in a second .... THAT'S ACTUALLY INSANE. P.S. I know they are not burning actually car fuel, but it's still insane.

[@atommachine]

This is why the Toaster i bought from them is in the cellar.

[@Coppermeshman]

"the power of velocity" I've yet to see a rocket that doesn't move.

[@rodschmidt8952]

oh, but they use the power of acceleration. Totally different

[@damonchase4771]

The average rocket holds about 300,000 gallons of fuel. The average rocket also takes about six and a half minutes to get to space. The guy in the video says most rockets use about 15000 gallons of fuel per second to get to space. 6.5 • 60 = 390 seconds to get to space. 390 • 15000 = 5,850,000 gallons of fuel. It’s just not possible for a rocket to burn that much fuel.

[@vanguard9067]

I wouldn’t believe anything said in this video. The amount of fuel and oxidizer used in a rocket launch is highly dependent on the weight of the payload. As a rocket ascends (and jettisons the first stage after 3 minutes or so) the amount needed is much less. The turbo-pumps on each of the nine Merlin engine on the SpaceX Falcon 9 rocket first stage generates about 10,000 hp.

[@davidswanson5669]

A rocket used less fuel-per-second as time goes by, because it starts to weigh less and is constantly traveling into less dense air (makes it easier to slice through the sky). Maybe that 15,000 figure was more about the initial liftoff.

[@mizuchi6209]

I would like to believe 15k a second is for the initial velocity as it's fighting inertia law before lifting off, i dont really know much though so i'm not confident on that

[@cineflixpk1191]

Thank you for picking up this point I thought I was the only one 😅

[@vanguard9067]

@@davidswanson5669 other than the spin-up of the turbo pumps at the start and spin-down as the stage gets ready for separation, consumption of fuel and oxidizer is essentially constant.

[@monsesh1316]

Imagine if they send astronaut into space with this.

[@welsty2003]

It would work brilliantly except for just one thing... Gravity.

[@theBlankScroll]

"Eliminating the use of fuel" Immediately uses fuel

[@coryleblanc]

you need fuel to keep escaping earths gravitational pull, gravity doesnt magically turn off in space

[@theBlankScroll]

@@coryleblanc no kidding

[@drivex6761]

ur small lie wont hinder the robust investment in green revolution it use no fuel just electricity from coal power plan

[@hhakawati]

ComeOn man

[@dosidicusgigas1376]

​​@@coryleblancin theory if the satellite could be "thrown" far enough, could it use a nuclear generator to generate thrust or deploy solar sails to escape orbit?

[@phillipgraham1422]

I feel that a critical flaw with this is that the greatest air resistance is near the surface. Air resistance is proportional to the density of the air and the square of the velocity. With conventional rockets, the rocket experiences less air resistance at the surface comparatively due to its relatively lower velocities. I would imagine that some very smart people have already considered this, but I feel like that this is an aspect that may stand out to some.

[@FalconFastest123]

That's why they must be launched from within the cylinder, which is a massive vacuum.

[@maidsandmuses]

Indeed. At the required velocity the shell would likely disintegrate the moment it exits the launcher and hits static atmosphere at ground-level atmospheric pressure. The point of maximum dynamic air pressure experienced by rockets as they are penetrating through the atmosphere is called the max-Q point. Once they have passed this point by sufficient margin they increase acceleration or tilt trajectory angle. In the Space Shuttle launch videos you can hear this communication, after they have passed max-Q: "Houston, GO for throttle-up". With the launch system proposed here max-Q would be at ground level, which is a complete no-no at 1 atm given the velocities required.

[@Meatball2022]

@@FalconFastest123the moment it leaves the vacuum it will explode

[@joecope9935]

One space gun plan situated the exit point on the summit of Mt. Killamanjaro because 1. at 19,000 feet it was above most of the atmosphere and, 2. it was on the equator which made inserting the satellite into orbit easier.

[@Meatball2022]

@@joecope9935 there’s no amount of mountain that can make this dumb thing work. It’s a giant fraud. Cash grab

[@Iordlangford]

This is spin launch, A company that destroys its own launch system and has never achieved even the most basic launch test into low orbit.

[@halalfoodtours3673]

It's a catapult, but just with a modern twist.

[@Leokuma7]

Another feature of this launcher is that it automatically splits the satellite into pieces

[@Duncan_1971]

The stresses can be simulated using FE analysis. If it works with FE then it's good to go. No risk involved at all.

[@Lindrios]

@@Duncan_1971 you're missing the point. Not a single satellite has survived virtual or physical testing. The centrifugal G forces alone destroy everything.

[@entangled31415]

Into powder to be precise.😂

[@Duncan_1971]

@@Lindrios They're continuing the project for a reason.

[@Lindrios]

@@Duncan_1971 yeah, promises to investors. There are hundreds of millions tied up in it, and still hopeless belief from people like yourself that it's a viable option. Even if an object survives the rotations to be launched, it still has the incredible heat from air resistance to contend with. Seeming as satellites are well known for having incredibly sensitive equipment onboard, no external company is going to risk using SpinLaunch

[@detective0532]

The g force must be incredible. Fragile satellite parts probably can't handle it.

[@jasonbaxter3658]

@TucsonDude I expect the g force will be somewhere between 20,000 and 100,000 times earth gravity. Most electronics will need to be specially designed to survive this and sensitive equipment has no chance. You should be able to lob an artillery shell no problem though.

[@patrickvanrinsvelt4466]

​@@TucsonDudeStill need to consider the lateral Gs. Centripetal force would be extreme.

[@CSpottsGaming]

These are specially designed payloads and not suitable for every application. As usual, this is an attempt to address some rather than all use cases.

[@kanekid36]

I worked for them for a few years. It takes minimal supporting adhesive on most components to stabilize them for the g forces expected during spin-up and launch

[@sc9160]

I can't wait for them to go public so I can short it! They have stated they produce ~10k Gs in a launch. A standard rocket launch depending on the platform produces a max of 35, for ICBMs and most are far lower. Falcon 9 takes a max G-load of 6 lmao. What nonsense.

[@kerravon4159]

Don't tell us how high it can throw the shell, that would actually be useful information.

[@omnivore2220]

In this age of mass confusion and lust for power, hype alone is now a valuable commodity.

[@TexasGolfer]

With high rotational speeds in seconds means you now have to over engineer the satellites so they don’t break with the centrifugal forces.

[@angryginger791]

Exactly. If your satellite needs no moving parts, you might be ok, otherwise, it would probably cost more to make it survive launch than it would to just put it on a Falcon 9 with a bunch of other satellites and launch them together.

[@MyFiddlePlayer]

If they were to make the radius larger, that would reduce the centrifugal force that they have to deal with.

[@miguellabordaburnett3617]

Yes, and also spinning giant metal pieces so fast is calling for a disaster.

[@oriontigley5089]

Shh, nobody tell ​@@miguellabordaburnett3617 about lawnmowers

[@ScottCheg]

Not to mention the atmospheric drag. Max Q for a rocket is already make or break. Now try literally flinging an object from ground level at around 8000km/h. That is what they propose. So huge centrifugal forces followed by huge atmospheric forces. The payloads will have to be tiny to have any chance whatsoever

[@lef1970]

This is why engineers shouldn’t drink.

[@fyka2902]

Actually quite the opposite. Allowing them to think too much results in diminishing returns. Best solution is free good quality ale on Fridays.

[@dannysllrs]

My name is Steve-O and this is - The Human Satellite!!!!!

[@raylessnesses3756]

This video's commentary sounds like me writing an essay and trying to reach the minimum word count

[@michaelgordon8142]

I'm suddenly interested in billionaires taking trips to space.

[@Ralphinsc]

A whole new series! Instead of "Will it blend?" we can do "Will it Yeet?" 😂🤣

[@T57Custodian]

Next issue. Not becoming a paste on the wall if you are inside it 😂

[@TotalDec]

Space is fiction.

[@Error-dq9wf]

@@TotalDecso whats really out there then? Is there no Saturn? Are there no other planets out there? What are those shiny dots in the sky then?

[@wetslop]

@@TotalDeccorrect

[@Zapprz]

The centrifugal forces on the satellite would pretty much tear it apart

[@josephbongiorno2265]

not if tightly compacted within an artillery shell.

[@upupuptheziggurat.liketysplit]

That's the wrong attitude, Sir. So you fold a material against the spin and G-force. So when it gets there, parked in LEO, it then naturally wants to expand from the shell the way we intended. Granted, you need a LEO Tug. But the theory is sound.

[@Krypton22B]

Even satellites have their own amusement park now

[@nathanmoses1953]

The best part is when they say the shell, which can't be thrown into space, splits open and a two-stage conventional rocket pops out and flies to space. So....fuel not eliminated. This is literally the dumbest thing ever.

[@CatacombD]

To be fair, the idea of reducing the total amount of fuel needed to be carried by a rocket is not a bad one. If there was a good way to give a rocket an initial boost could save a ton of money in the end. The problem is that this particular design causes so much strain on the potential payload that you'd probably lose anything you gain by the sheer amount of additional reinforcing the payload would require to survive the launch. And, so far, that's been the main thing holding back "supplementary launch systems." It sounds like a neat idea to launch a rocket out of a massive rail cannon, or something similar, but it turns out that using a rocket the whole way is much gentler on the sensitive equipment you're trying to get to space.

[@mopimpn]

I will come back to this clip 10 years from now and it will still be at the stage of production i bet

[@brianfitch5469]

It was many years ago at this same stage. This isnt new.

[@RebelWithoutAPause777]

Sounds like my life

[@aayushdipande18]

​@@RebelWithoutAPause777LMAO 💀

[@catkeys6911]

A flock of birds suddenly appears, 3 birds are vaporized, and the angle of deployment is slightly altered, causing it to crash into Greenland. Sounds cool.

[@Lykapodium]

It was so successful it spin-launched itself from any further investments

[@1kontrabida]

Even Aliens are scratching their heads on how this will work without damaging the cargo.

[@tysonbills7360]

Humans in the 1960s: Straps machines and people to the top of a complex and mathematically tested warhead. Humans in 2024: Idk let’s just throw it

[@maxpulido]

Humans in 1900: smart enough to already know this is impossible.

[@turtlegdt1108]

@@maxpulido Why would your opinion even matter in this topic lol

[@turtlegdt1108]

Turns out a slingshot is still the best invetion we have out there

[@maxpulido]

@@turtlegdt1108 I can see this is a situation where it's easier to make a fool of you, than to convince you that you are a fool.

[@francocavecchia8246]

​@@maxpulidoI mean, is it really impossible? Probably dumb as hell and stupidly expensive, but I doubt it is impossible

[@CX0909]

If that thing throws a bearing during the windup it will be the biggest and most expensive grenade in history.

[@Rotorhead1651]

Phil Risutto: "Here's the wind-up, and the pitch, and...ooooo, looks like he's thrown out his rotator cuff! That's GOTTA hurt."

[@CX0909]

@@Rotorhead1651 😄 only his rotator cuff is a claymore mine and blows the top half of his body off. It’s just legs walking around in a circle trying to pick up the parts with no arms.

[@thatguyjohn1131]

There were no satellites harmed in the making of this video...

[@stephengregory1655]

I like how they forgot to mention it hasn't actually worked yet

[@BattleAxeRX]

NASA is now frantically researching this, "velocity" power.

[@samtgodfrey]

They might have more fun inventing ornithopters!

[@user-el2xc2su4s]

​@@samtgodfreyeven looking how a grass grows will be more fun.

[@odysseusrex5908]

No, they're not.

[@isaiahdaniels5643]

Speed?! HOW COULD WE HAVE MISSED IT?! The satellite has to go FAST! *everyone claps*

[@samtgodfrey]

@@isaiahdaniels5643 Naah... What's the rush? They're gonna be out there floating around forever, anyway. May as well take their time.