Can We Throw Satellites to Space? - SpinLaunch
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 5 авг 2022
- Take the Real Engineering X Brilliant Course and get 20% off your an annual subscription: brilliant.org/realengineering
Watch this video ad free on Nebula: nebula.app/videos/realenginee...
Links to everything I do:
beacons.ai/brianmcmanus
Get your Real Engineering shirts at: standard.tv/collections/real-...
Credits:
Writer/Narrator: Brian McManus
Editor: Dylan Hennessy
Animator: Mike Ridolfi
Animator: Eli Prenten
Modelling: Sam Carter
Sound: Graham Haerther
Henry Ariza - Camera Operator and Color
Jamon Tolbert - Camera Operator
Gina Giorgi - Production Coordinator
Donovan Bullen - Music
Thumbnail: Simon Buckmaster
Select imagery/video supplied by Getty Images
Thank you to AP Archive for access to their archival footage.
Music by Epidemic Sound: epidemicsound.com/creator
Thank you to my patreon supporters: Adam Flohr, Henning Basma, Hank Green, William Leu, Tristan Edwards, Ian Dundore, John & Becki Johnston. Nevin Spoljaric, Jason Clark, Thomas Barth, Johnny MacDonald, Stephen Foland, Alfred Holzheu, Abdulrahman Abdulaziz Binghaith, Brent Higgins, Dexter Appleberry, Alex Pavek, Marko Hirsch, Mikkel Johansen, Hibiyi Mori. Viktor Józsa, Ron Hochsprung 
Наука
This has been in the works for about 3 months now. Our first full documentary shoot. There is a lot of negativity in the comments from people who have not even watched the video yet. This channel is about being positive about engineering. Encouraging and inspiring the next generation of engineers. If you are looking for a channel that focuses on being negative and adds nothing to world, you have come to the wrong place. It's so much easier to point out what's hard, than using your brain to think of solutions. That's not what engineers do. We find problems, and then we find solutions. If you don't think a company that's trying to throw satellites into space, and has already built a 1/3rd prototype, isn't insanely cool. I don't know what to do for ye. That's badass. Whether they succeed or not is irrelevant. It's not your investment money they are using, chill out.
They've watched the video made by a chemist who is notoriously bad at analyzing aerospace projects.
This isn't insanely cool, its idiotic and wasting of money. You could have found better subject for your documentary.
Seriously. It's all too easy for us as Humans to go all negative especially when concerning new or weird things. Will this project and ones like it actually be able to pan out? maybe not. But this trial-and-error approach to problems and crazy ideas are how we come up with solutions to problems we did not even know existed.
@Fourier21 "Skeptical thinking". Personally I prefer critical thinking
@Fourier21 Just being negative isn’t skeptical thinking.
I find it quite funny that the only piece of technology that was important enough to keep as a trade secret was how to close doors really, really fast.
I don't think it's so much the door itself but the control circuitry to close it as fast as it needs to be closed. And showing off the door mechanism might help somebody figure that part out
They also didn't show the exact mechanism they are using to launch the rocket after it has gained enough KE
I wonder, if the military industrial complex has got their greasy meat hooks in this yet???!....
Maybe using car's airbag will do the trick 😂
@@kanavsachdeva5093yes, I'm wondering about this exact point.
“It’s a door closing, I don’t know what to ask”
“It’s really important not til let air back in“
I love engineering XD
The term "yeet" at 5:35 is both a very accurate and a much appreciated addition to this presentation.
Lmaooo idk why this comment got me laughing
100%
Oh wow. I love this new format! Great to see you on camera. The quality of this documentary reminds me of the Discovery channel when I was a kid... way back before it got overtaken by reality shows.
@@ollllj 👋 Bye
@@ollllj Why don't you try communicating your issues like an adult before hijacking a comment to announce your departure.
Yeah! This is awesome!
Lol. Why is it a scam ? Not a single argument. Just a statement thrown in. Lol
@@ollllj This scam channel with a fake engineer is just as bad has the hyperloop. Driven by hype and taking advantage of the gullible.
I love that a engineer with a degree used "yeet" as a technical term
It's applicable and accurate in this context so why not
Oh my god.... I want control to say "3...2...1... We Have Yeet!!!"
engineer with a degree??? a degree in scamming probably yeah
Also said "just the tip"
Still not getting over that "yeet" is now a technical term
I think I see why the release mechanism was kept a secret. It's another ultra-fine timed system.
You can't just release the capsule from a centrifuge and expect it fly like a bullet. It will be tossed in a straight line, yes, but it still will be spinning at the same angular velocity!
So it has to be two locks (may be more, but that gets even more complicated), releasing the front one first and letting the rear one impart the angular momentum to stop the bullet from spinning and then releasing it just in time.
I guarantee you
This is absolute rubbish
It cant work the math is conpletely obvious……
They are fooling gullible people to buy into this.
They will have their IPO and its gonna gall apart like Theranos, Nikola Trucks, and other scams.
MSM is compliant
You explained that really well.
You know
glad somebody pointed that out
Arrrrg, rotational inertia be a harsh mistress.
I'm nowhere near an engineer. But, just curious, rather than releasing an equal mass counterweight for balance that requires clean-up (and I assume dirties up the vacuum), could the counterweight be a magnetic load that simply gets turned off at the time of release?
This sounds like a really good idea. That way they can adjust the counterweight for each launch just by adjusting the current in the coil rather than making different counterweights for each payload.
Don't get it. This magnetic load is exerted in what direction? What against what? And how does an electromagnet that can be turned on and off generate mass to counterbalance the load? The counterbalancing thing is not weight, it is mass.
@@danielch6662 The magnet can be attracted to the surrounding circumference metal sheet (maybe place another magnet in the circle which is driven in phase with the rotating arm) so one side of the arm gets constant pull which does not have the rocket and when we release the payload the instantly turn off the magnet
5:35 "SpinLaunch aims to YEET its aeroshell..."
It's so simple, yet so incredibly funny.
I had to stop the video to see if anyone else lol when he said that. Glad to know I'm not alone🤣🤣
Yeah, there's no way I'm not gonna call this thing the Space Yeeter.
I like how it's now a scientific term 😂
I'm so glad others noticed that!
I came for a YEET reference and I was not disappointed.
I would love to see something like this built on the moon for launching unmanned missions further into space.
This might actually work on the moon lol
@@randomdude189 The moon does seem like a really good environment for this type of launch indeed, especially due to the lack of an atmosphere. You'll probably still need some kind of fast moving doors to keep the dust out though.
Was thinking something similar but in orbit... Only slight orbital adjustments needed to dock, no issues with air friction which simplifies the device. Delta-v from LEO to say a Mars transfer is slightly less than half (i think?) needed to get to LEO, so you could possibly launch heavier payloads on a chemical-fuelled rocket for an orbital slingshot to Mars. The moon idea is awesome too and would make sense when there's manufacturing capabilities up there.
Edit: I forgot to consider the 150MW energy requirement. That would require a huge solar array so LEO might be out of the question...
This concept would be ideal to launch raw materials from mining sites on the surface of the moon or asteroids. Could be the cheapest way to assemble a city-sized space station for example.
It's not really needed on the moon. Reaching escape velocity from the moon is rather easy. 2.4km/s (mach 7), and no atmosphere to contend with. But you really only need orbital velocity around 1.6km/s because low power acceleration such as a plasma drive will get you from orbit to wherever you need to go. A linear railgun would do fine to reach orbit or even escape velocity, and much easier on the payload than a spin-launch device.
The motivation for spin-launch makes more sense on Earth where we have the tyranny of the rocket equation to content with.
This was very interesting and well put together, but one thing I will say that I feel like I have not done anything with my life.. seeing these younger generation doing mind-blowing projects.. it's amazing! KEEP IT UP!
Take it with a grain of salt. The young VP they introduced at the beginning looks very similar to the guy near the end. Might just be a family-related job reference.
Yet , I am watching the science that galileo would love to have seen?
Wake up, maybe? You could do some thinking to stop the average leader being far too aggrressivve? Stop all those stupid wars, please.
@@voornaam3191 And what have you done exactly?
Don't tell people what to do, you have no authority over anyone.
This probably isn’t a viable project, so don’t beat yourself up.
Has anyone noticed that the projectile will be rotating about its center. It is rotating as it is attached and stays rotating after it leaves. This effect would explain the change in angle as it exits the membrane. The projectile continues this rotation as it rises. To eliminate this rotation they will need to counter-rotate the projectile on the centrifuge and somehow coordinate the launch with both position and orientation.
Gotta be either some sort of double release mechanism that stabilizes that rotational inertia or maybe we’re overthinking it and the fins in the dense atmosphere is enough to straighten it out?
You never disappoint me. This was a glorious video! Thank you.
Thank you Jesus. It was lovely meeting you last month. Blessings upon you
@@RealEngineering 👀 say what?!
Wait what
@@abhinavrobinson2310 he had a go in spin launch too. Got to see Jesus up close.
That's high praise coming from Jesus.
There has to be an error in the altitude vs time graph at 32:16… they’re going at Mach 6 (i.e. 2 km/s at MSL), yet you have them riding up to nearly 80 km of altitude in just 1 second. At that point you’ve got an interplanetary mass driver on your hands
I think this graph would make sense if the time axis was changed from seconds to minutes. This would result in an initial slope at the very start of about 120km/minute which is 2km/s. After 1 minute has passed the slope has almost halved to 1km/s, which sort of agrees with the 19.8m/s^2 initial deceleration value he stated earlier.
Yes, that is definitely an error. The time graph needs to be extended at least two times, perhaps three times to get an accurate representation at the specified launch velocity. This also means that the projectile will be experiencing atmospheric drag for much longer than is being suggest in the video, and in turn there is going to be much more thermal energy (due to the duration) being transferred into the body (potentially damaging internal components). A ceramic tip will better resist thermal transfer (approx. 10 times less thermally conductive) over a greater duration of exposure to hypersonic drag.
Agree the scale must be wrong on either axis - I think the comment above must be right, the time is in minutes not seconds
@@jakejones2126 The bottom graph does make more sense with the time scale in minutes. But the top graph seems to be correct as it is -- the air density drops two-fold at 6 km altitude, which would be reached in a few seconds with 2 km/s initial velocity.
@@cogoid Yep, I agree.
According to this year old video “Spinlaunch have only just begun with the 1/3rd scale tests”. Why then, did these tests stop abruptly a year ago? It is safe to assume the project hit the rocks big style.
Surprisingly difficult to get any information to either support or refute this claim. There's a TON of publicity style material out there. The official website plays more like an animated powerpoint style presentation rather than an actual information source. Even the Wikipedia page just has brief notes on awards given and plans. It's difficult to find anything that even says they're still in business, let alone whether they're conducting launches, test launches, tests or anything else. And of course the idiotic questions like "Can a human survive Spinlaunch?" don't help matters.
Anyone with a fucntioning brain can see this is DOA and another rugpull to gullible investors.
Because this was NEVER feasible.
That's why it's all young engineers using investor money.
Real engineers know this is absolutely ridiculous..... else, why isn't NASA trying this to save money on their launches?!
Wouldn't NASA want to be able to achieve higher payloads?!
Yesterday, they announced the founder and CEO quit and left. He's being replaced by the COO. The lack of news is not a good sign. The website looks like a placeholder not updated since 2022.
@@danielch6662 how could anyone have seen this coming!
the lower graph at 32:14 has to be wrong. In 10seconds it claims it reaches a height of 160km, which means an average speed of 16.000m/s. Which is about mach46, way higher than the plan to use.
This launch system will really find use when launching from airless moons.
They are saying that the real issue is gravity over distance, but yes, zero air resistance and lower gravity from moons will make this the preferred method and would probably work in its current state. The railgun method could be used for humans if the curve were gentle enough.
You can just use a space elevator on airless moons.
quit smoking that stuff you find growing behind the outhouse
I’ve been saying this too. Also they can make it a larger arm and lighter to ship there than the vacuum chamber version on earth
@@LarsLarsen77 Space elevators face a lot of problems even in a vacuum and on bodies with lower gravity. Much more viable there for sure, but I wouldn't say it's a foregone conclusion that they'd be the preferred method if Spinlaunch is already developed.
Much of the cost of this system (both development and manufacturing) comes from the necessity of operating it in a near-vacuum. Basically, why bother dumping so much money into space elevator research when you have such a robust system developed that only needs to be manufactured?
@18:54 When the secondary door closes, it appears to be a pressurized fabric, very much like a car airbag, which are also super fast in deployment. They would also release minimal air into the system. I guess once sealed, then the regular door can be more slowly slid into place. Interesting workaround for this problem.
If I were a billionaire my first purchase of egregious excess would be the installation of that rapid air lock mechanism as the front door of my home.
Just imagine how satisfying it would be to actuate a door slam of that ferocity on Jehova's Witnesses, Girl Scouts, In-Laws, new-ex-girlfriends, etc...
Your ex shows up babbling about some bullshit like: "Oh heyyy stranger lol don't mean to be awwwk but I think I left my neti pot here and you know how my nasal pass-" SLAAAAAAAAM!!!
I watched it a few times in slow motion.. I believe it's somewhat of a normal door, with a shell and spring system. Sort of like a trampoline. There seems to be a cushion layer on top but I think for the most part its a solid door and not a pressurized fabric which adds to complexity and maintenance.
It looks to me more like it's just a normal door and just with such a high speed collision even a solid object can seem somewhat malleable
@@anonanon6947 I'd also have thought that the incoming air-pressure would help with a solid door
i.e. When the rocket has pierced the outer skin, all that atmospheric pressure is going to rush into the launch tube. If you can at least get the door away from the side of the tube, that'll help slam that rigid door shut.
World's most powerful door slam?
You can also see the door's concave, which'll help. Maybe that's why you see the 'judder' when it closes in the lab when both sides are at atmospheric pressure.
@@McPickleness Billionaires usually have a gate outside their homes, so you never have to deal with someone unwelcome knocking.
I think that the real problem, which I'm a bit dissapointed you couldn't get into in the video, is the release mechanism. At those speeds, even getting it slightly wrong can send the rocket tumbling around out of control. There are many parts where going wrong for the tiniest fraction of a second can have very bad results: at what point in the rotation you release, releasing both the weight and counterweight at the same time, releasing all of the parts attaching the rocket to the rotating arm at the same time (or releasing the very big one cleanly)... It all needs to be timed to perfection, and robust enough to work many times without maintenance (unless they plan on doing maintenance under vacuum). It doesn't mean it's impossible, but I'll believe they have managed to do all of it perfectly and consistently when I see it.
I'm sure they definitely needed a random commenter on RUclips to tell them the risks of their own fucking invention
@@Nyx_2142 well, I really hope they don't need me to tell them the problems, especially after they have build it (at scale). But knowing the problems doesn't mean they know how to fix it. I know the problems, but I certainly don't know how (or even if) it can be solved. And in my comment I very clearly say this doesn't mean it's impossible, just a big challenge that I'm not convinced they can solve well enough to work.
In any case, the real point of my comment was complaining how, in a video describing how they have solved the problems of this approach, what I see as one of the biggest problems (and I believe the video agrees with me on that) is explained away with a "I know they definitely solved that problem because they told me they had, they just couldn't tell me how". Don't get me wrong, I understand why they can't say from a business point of view, but I hope you see how them saying that is not enough to convince me, especially when they haven't even been able to test it and prove it works at full scale themselves.
Sorry if I was off on any of the details of the video, but it's been 3 months and I'm not rewatching the entire video.
You'll notice in this video, the vehicle comes out sideways
@nyx_2142 it’s more useful to other viewers to help non-mechanically inclined folks understand some of the challenges. Ease up, dude!
35:45 they actually specifically removed information about the release mechanism. That's why it wasn't in the video. But the issue you raised is certainly something they considered
This was beautifully done, good job and thanks!
Great video! Loved the format!
sounds like a fun idea for a saw blade launcher
My Australian friend, spin launch is as useful as double condom socks.
Wow you did a thing.
Spin launched drone darts?
@@mikahessling8522 well you demonstrated you're the brains of this operation.
The in depth discussion about vacuum pumps was fantastic!
How large can one make a sling shot device?
@@pollywanda 40 meters
I have to admit, they were blowing me away with the description of pumping individual molecules--then they said "but we don't need all that!"
It was! That's a fairly common instrument that the general public knows very little about, it was very nice to learn more
@@kentslocum they made a whole bunch of cgi for funding discussions and they wanted to show all the videos. haha Youll notice every time they show it flinging a payload there are trees all around it but the site they are at.... clearly no trees
While the arms may be able to withstand half a rotation of unbalance, how much air would get in through the launch tube from keeping the door open an extra half a rotation? And if that isn’t a problem, would the two satellites being launched so close to each other cause problems when they initiate their stage 2 rockets? Rather than dropping the counter weight, wouldn’t adding weight back on to the launch arm be a more elegant solution? Either by dropping a dummy payload into the arm from the inside of the chamber, or by extending a counterweight down the interior of the launch arm. This would also cause more energy to be reclaimed during the braking process.
I would have liked to see and hear about their solution to the problems with the lateral g's on the two rocket engines during spin as those may not be able to assemble themselves into their final configuration in flight the way they plan to do with the reaction wheel. The rocket engines will have way more massive parts than a capacitor. And the engines will get other stresses when firing different than those of spin, and must not fail while firing after the great stress during spin.
Nobody has one actually, with the current technology we aren't even close to building something like that. Any current rocket would simply disintegrate under the proposed lateral loads, and there is no feasible wag to harden them.
Imagine the bearing of the launcher.... the axial force.
I love how you describe every single problem the engineers faced when designing this contraption. From basic vacuum concepts to intricate equations that describe every step of the way. In particular, I love the part where you said it would have to spin at Mach 6 which simply baffled me. Thank you for your great work in researching and describing these marvels of engineering.
What exactly does Mach 6 mean in a vacuum?
The entire thing is inane.
@@akulkis If it pleases you more you can transfer it to kmh, m\s, mph, fps or whatever by using the approximate number they probably had in mind when saying mach which is 1235kmh
@@akulkis I believe Mach 6 is used as a simple measurement of sound, in this case, 6 times the speed of sound. Thus, mach 6 is just 6 times the speed of sound in a vacuum.
@@nickcave5947 the speed of sound in a vacuum is 0 m/s
@@vibaj16 I see, I saw it as a mere unit of measurement to simply compare it to the speed of sound in one earth’s atmosphere. Thank you for clarifying!
Has anyone ever thought about that such a system wouldn't need to launch complex systems (satellites etc) to be viable, but just mere materials? Ideally homogenous blocks of it. Like building materials for space stations. Or supplies. 200 kg of aluminium plates or such. 200 kg of food. 200 kg of plain water. 200 kg of fuel. Trivial things that are INCREDIBLY expensive to bring into space via rocket but are perfectly suited for a spin launch system. Perfectly located center of mass. No vibrations.
You need to bring those supplies to a stable orbit first, for which you'll need a powered upper stage, which needs a guidance system, which will have to withstand the extreme G load.
the food will experiences 10 times its own mass
Yes raw materials for space manufacturing. Also look up John Hunter's 'Cannons to the Planets' lecture, same ideas, different launch system.
@@rusher2937 Good point. That's always the same system, however. It can be designed once to withstand the G load and then you're done. The payload can be physically trivial that has no problem getting a lot of G load. Like water or metal or fuel.
@@rusher2937 That's not as difficult as it sounds. There are already electronic GPS guidance systems that can survive ~15000g, they are used in guided artillery shells. I'd be more worried about the other rocket parts like the valves and other liquid handling systems. The propellant tanks in particular will have to be very strong.
But shouldn't we expect the projectile to spin ferociously in the initial spinning plane in order to observe the conservation of angular momentum law. If so, how could they beat it, especially in the evacuated part directly after launch. Also, in air they can easily counteract such spin using control surface, but this is expected to increase drag significantly, right?
Conservation of angular momentum does not imply the projectile will continue spinning after release (i.e. after the force pointing towards the center of rotation is removed). This is obviously the case (think spinning a bucket on a rope), but what is the precise explanation why angular momentum is conserved?
Super intresting, can't stop thinking of the consequences of a missifre/doors not opening quickly enough/malfunction.
I will admit, this video answered my questions about the door mechanism (which was only a membrane before). Many other aspects of the system are clearly feasible, such as the low atmosphere vessel, and energy requirements.
However, I do not feel like the enough information was given on how the vehicle/payload would deal with high shock events, and they are clearly hiding their release mechanism design. And yes, that release mechanism will be proprietary, but it should be the biggest concern for potential investors, as the loads it must endure are very high and it must release the vehicle in nearly an instant without imparting any significant torque.
I still don't believe the project can scale up, but I will be happy to be proven wrong, if they can pull it off.
Smite the redditor
Well they hide cause if they dont its proberly get stealed [stolen but who cares about Grammar and correct spelling amyways, thats the fucking Internet] (i mean the idea and system,not the parts itself ofc)
@@Squid728 "stealed" lol
You never heard of stolen?
Scam... ruclips.net/video/9ziGI0i9VbE/видео.html
@@AnyBodyWannaPeanut no
English is not my main language
And i am a simple person
Past is for me: word+ ed
Nothing else
One of my favorite videos thus far from this channel. Neither dumbed-down nor overly-challenging - I think you found the Goldilocks "Just right" level.
What is the kinetic energy of the projectile when released? Now think where the force opposing that energy (accelerating it towards the center) goes on release of the projectile.
@@timballam3675 9
He be thinking: I made a low level too easy video..meh..had to improve next time
Just another vaporware company getting hyped up by clueless RUclipsrs with 0 foresight
@@andrewvanderwolff1226 1.21 Jiggawatts
Really nice video to understand this spinlaunch technique highly appreciated.
Great video; answered most of my questions. How does the vehicle's innards withstand the G-forces of the spin? Is the entire interior of the vehicle potted SOLID with epoxy or something? Not every component (like turbopumps for propellants) CAN be potted...
Hope they manage to overcome all the obstacles for this to become economical. Being able to send fuel up cheaply to an orbital refueling station would open up so many options for manned missions.
"Angry Birds" method is more feasible
not only that, they'd save fuel sending the fuel up, so that same fuel they'd need to send up a falcon 9, like a third or half of it would be saved and used for missions to other planets or whatever they'd need it for.
@@Kiyoone Replace the tether with a pinwheel and launch not one, not two, but six at once.
People trash talk Spinlaunch, and it's not entirely unfounded to say that it's a bad idea to do this _on Earth:_ gravity is too high, and air is too thick for it to be done easily; obviously it can be done anyway, as Spinlaunch has demonstrated. However... this engineering problem looks a lot better when you're doing it on the Moon or even Mars, where the gravity is already lower (so you don't need to spin so fast) and air is already very thin. The tech Spinlaunch is working on now could do us a lot of good further in the future, and it'd be a really nice thing for the poor guy on Mars trying to build one of these if we've already made one work.
@@ratemisia They haven't demonstrated it yet. They managed to throw a rocket that is just as fast as a bullet from a canon.
They are still very very very far away from their goals.
an orbital YEET launch system is probably the coolest thing i've heard yet.
hopefully they're able to overcome the many barriers to space flight and become a viable solution.
graystillplays anyone
They just need another billion in investor money! You should sell your house and give it them! They would like to buy another themselves, maybe get a yacht too? I mean, don't hold out! invest in them now!
@@kodfkdleepd2876 you alright?
@@technopriest6708 Hey dude, go infest your life savings with them, ok? They really need your money!! Maybe ask your parents too!
@Yuuto Nosuri Yes, always give billionaires your money, they need it real bad! They are suffering because they lack the ability to do great things. Please give at least 10% of your money to the next billionaire so he can help save humanity! They work really hard, like about 39843 hours a week typically so deserve more money to help them be happy.
A masterpiece of ingenuity and engineering.. 💗
when pumping a vacuum. Would it be any help if you were to spin the chamber? Start spinning at the very beginning of the pumping process. This might fling the air molecules against the walls of the chamber so instead of trying to collect the molecules throughout the void of the chamber the molecules would be against the walls or the chamber. Maybe allowing a scoop to direct the molecules collected on the walls of the chamber out via the pump.
I think where this system will work best is in low gravity environments like on the moon.
1) Instead of having to remove the gasses in the spin-launcher, they aren't an issue.
2) No atmosphere in the way, means much higher exit speeds with lower RPM & power requirements.
3) A lot less gravity will mean a lot less loss of momentum.
4) With less severe construction & power constraints you could scale it up even more to send out even larger payloads.
I'm not sure how a spin-launch system would fair against something like a railgun approach, but it would be interesting to see how it would compare.
Then again, all I've seen about the railgun approach to getting payloads off the moon or Mercury (for a Dyson Swarm) is Kurzgesagt's animations.
>> Of the many principles:
mass & density of the object,
are the primary factors.
-- Neither of these involve air, or gravity.
-- Must consider BOTH properties of density !
( Amount of mass per volume,
AND
Stability of the involved mass. )
???? Sample ????
-- An Unstable mass of
stone/gravel, is not suitable.
-- a Stable mass of the same sunstance,
is suitable !
-- It is easy to create satalites, that are 100% stable mass.
(Ballanced & Fixed Distribution of the mass. )
Great thinking using it on the moon or other planets, I think here on earth, the G forces this thing produces will be too great for alot of the components in the payload.
I love that you referenced that other video! The amount of excitement and curiosity around science and tech from the general public is so exciting. ( I mean people like me, I’m an artistic person. I’ve never been good at math or science but I absolutely love learning about it)
For anyone who has heard of the Sprint anti-ICBM missile from the 1970's, this is completely feasible to make function as intended, albeit quite difficult. For anyone who doesn't know, the Sprint was a high velocity direct interception missile that would reach Mach 10 within 5 seconds of launch from the ground, going through a similar flight regime in many aspects to what spin-launch's vehicle would have to endure. On top of that, the acceleration of the vehicle during the initial phase of a sprint launch is significantly higher than what the spin-launch would impart on a launch vehicle.
Once again with that being said, what they are trying to do is incredibly difficult (some might even say a bit crazy), but the system truly does seem to be possible and I hope to see them achieve a successful orbital launch in the near future.
The Sprint missile accelerated at 100 g for 5 seconds. The spin launch vehicle is subject to up to 10,000 g for much longer as it spins up. So, the Spin Launch acceleration is much, much greater than Sprint’s.
@@TricksterJ97 your math is wrong your quoting the weight on the arm
Im a highschool senior, i have alot of off periods and alot of time to drive around. One day driving on the highway i took a random exit, and driving down a long road, stopped at a bathroom, ad i looked towards the horizon, this thing was sitting out there, its a very foreign site, there were some trucks opening a gate to what i assume was the road to the structure. ill have to go see if its public access after spring break
For the launcher, don't use iron to rotate, but use iron fiber which can be stable when widened, calculated to withstand a pull of 12 tons or more so that you can increase the pulling load to launch the rocket.
and don't forget oil to reduce friction at hype speed when launching the rocket
I'd like to hear the sonic boom from the launch vehicle first hitting atmosphere after leaving the final door.
Would this system not be more efficient launching from a higher altitude, and also warm and arid air?
This will be most effective on places like the moon, where there is no air resistance!
I was wondering about the boom myself... it's strange they didn't mention it at all. I like the whole endeavour a lot though!
The entire area will get blasted with the most minuscule adjustments.
@@nickauclair1477 the adverbs and nouns are shaking
The low level of English that I manage has been enough to learn tons of new things thanks to you and this new type of format. I have no words to thank you for the time spent to create this amazing work.
I send you greetings from a small town in the mountains of Colombia. !!
Location at 5-6km over sea level would lower the initial force needed to overcome air resistance to some extent. Even to be just in The Aquarius Plateau would give about 3.5km height over sea level. Also making it easier to do vacuum in the chamber. atm at 3500m is just 0.65
Love it!
Have you considered the gains, of final launch design being in the high Arizona Mesa? Or high Mountain region of Utah and Idaho for final scale models launch Base?
Among other world locations on the globe...!
Love it
Keep up with the math,
Achieve Great things!
There should be "This is an 3D render" when animations are used and not tests.
You can tell easily, most of the stuff on this channel is renders when explaining stuff
Is it that hard to notice? I thought humans were a tiny bit more intelligent than that.
Yes, there should be, even if it's obvious. Some clips looks 'too good/futuristic' that I also wonder if they are 3d rendered. And there's also 'too good' renders that I thought they're true...
Well, they can just put the "This is a 3d render" on renders irregardless of reason, removes unnecessary confusion.
+1 the quality of renders is constantly improving on this channel, which I appreciate, but it also makes it less obvious what is real footage. Many cinema films already use renders for some parts/scenes and it is not noticeable anymore if properly done.
It’s easy to see, the real ones tumble instead of flying straight.
Makes one appreciate writers like Jules Verne who were ahead of their time.
This makes me think of the Big Gun in quake 2. But yeah. Jules Verne was a boss of his time.
So we go to florida and make a REALLY BIG GUN, make a bullet out of cast iron and shoot people around the moon? Never mind that the crew would be turned into human soup on the inside of the ball as soon as the gun went off, hahaha. Also the fact that on reentry the ball would have hit the ocean with the yield of a small warhead, which is definitely a problem he thought about and decided to entirely gloss over. He's still my favorite writer of all time.
Makes one appreciate scientists who can actually do math. This CAN'T work.
@@sandstar102 But that was the thing with Jules Verne. He wrote stories that sound believable, but would never actually work. From the Earth to the Moon is a good example of this, as well as The Mysterious Island.
@@maxenceleboeuf I mean the volcano was a bit much but the rest of the book was decently plausible. It's also my favorite book ever, lol.
The guy was writing to entertain people. I'm sure that if/when we ever colonize space, our descendants are going to roll their eyes at most modern scifi plots. Jules Verne put a lot more effort into his fact checking than like any contemporary writers do. Love him
This is soooo much more interesting than lighting tons of what is essentially kerosene and hoping it doesn't blow up in your face. Cool thing about the double doors is if they are evacuating the tube, the first set are able to start swinging in near vacuum with little resistance and using the incoming rush of atmosphere to help slam them shut. Nothing an appropriate amount of steel can't overcome.
We burn it because this is the most efficient and the cheapest way. Kerosene is one of the most energy dence, cheap, efficient, easy to store and transport, safe to work fuel we have.
Their "math" (more like baseless aspirations) doesn't add up.
@@user-hb7py7xy7b Your claim is less based than theirs, tbh.
It took an embarrassing amount of time for the concept of relativity in a supersonic object to click in, but once that happened this became one of the most exciting projects I've heard of in many years. Best of luck and we'll all benefit from your success. Thanks for making this video and forcing me to confront my sea-level atmosphere engineering biases.
2:12 This space launch gun project previously funded by Saddam Hussein is far more exciting, less expensive, simple and efficient. If improved further, it would have been capable of launching fragile cargo as good as the conventional space shuttle. SpinLaunch is not that good at all.
@@JohnKickboxing Please list a source saying it would be cheaper with conventional explosives
@@gabedarrett1301 We can make the initial explosion milder that helps it launch cargo gently with low G force then gradually get the explosion stronger. That helps reduce the cost for making cargo strong enough to withstand high G force.
@@gabedarrett1301 We can also pump the air out of its barrel and that helps reduce air drag as cargo launching. That would save the cost for launching.
@@JohnKickboxingThat's nonsense. Go take a physics class
I wonder how they calculate so precisely when exactly to release the payload. In such high RPMs, even a millisecond later can mean it will totally miss the exit chamber.
I imagine there has to be an electrical trip wire of some form. Essentially whenever the rotator hits X point of rotation an electrical signal will trigger the release, you just activate that wire and then when the rotator gets to the correct position 'boom' it fires perfectly. That way the accuracy of the system literally comes down to just how accurate you can measure the rotation and you don't need any digital processing after that point. For stuff like that I always feel analog signal processing is just 100x more reliable.
The more complicated way is to do it based off digital encoder reading and delays but that just seems like a lot more tuning and in general more prone to issues.
@@chaselewis5372 You are just making guesses as to how this system works and asserting it as if it has any merit. There could be multiple ways they monitor arm position to the accuracy needed, saying it could be an "analog" tripwire or a digital encoder is just fluff without substance.
Generating the electrical signal is easy. In an ordinary car engine the spark is timed to the rotation of the shaft to a few tens of microseconds or better, using very inexpensive commodity components. That is a solved problem.
On the other hand, rapidly and controllably releasing any mechanism which is under 100000 tons of force is a completely new territory. One would have to work very hard to solve this engineering challenge. An additional challenge is to do this precisely without creating disturbing forces, so that the rocket flies in the desired direction and within specified angular rates.
@@cogoid Indeed. Timing stuff at 450 rpm is rather boring to anyone who's worked on timing a 20,000 rpm combustion engine. There are many potential issues with this system, but timing isn't one of them. I'd be far more concerned about what microseismic events would do to the system while it's spun up. But unlike most of the internet, I won't assume they employ apes hammering on keyboards but engineers who are smart enough to do their job.
@@chaselewis5372 Bro you realize that having an analog trigger like that would be infinitely more harder than a fucking encoder lmfaoooo.
Its the 21st century. The math and sensors already exist for the most insane accuracies needed. I think they got it under controll
I absolutely love that the heart of this concept is “let’s just throw it.”
let's throw it really really hard
26,000 mph is required to escape the Earth's gravitational pull. Unless a chemical rocket is used when the object is thrown, I cannot see this working in the space race.
@@Roughdog86 no, the problem is the massive weight, if you could get constant speed you could do it a just 24mph, will take a loooooooooong time but is, in theory at least, possible. If you talk about orbital speed, maybe, but on the vaccum on the space you don have many losses so the small rocket is fine. Just throw it and turn on later to save a lot of fuel.
@@oienu I understand completely. Thank you for the breakdown. It'll be good to see this thing come to light.
The engineering marvels that are created to reduce waste, increase efficiency, and improve technique are amazing. Between launching rockets on minimal fuel, reusing rockets or casings, and creating inflatable habitats in space is beyond words. I’m so thankful to every group and person that funds these innovators!
Do two rotors with opposite spin and opposite release to compensate? After 180 degree rotation or 540 degree rotation for safe distance release other two. So there is no release shock, the unbalance is oscillating and 0 at release point and 4 starts per cycle.
I remember that cannon at the end of the video, he managed to get the projectiles about 100km? into the atmosphere and all he had was two welded together second hand naval guns which were clearly not designed for the task at hand. In the age of optimism there was a saying if you can imagine it you can build it, so let them have at it, we shall see if it works. All the effects and forces at work are known and can be calculated in advance so it should work.. and even if it doesn't work for orbital launch, maybe its the next big thing in intercontinental express deliveries.
The guy who designed that stuff, Gerald Bull, was a fascinating guy, and his projects equally so. Ended up assassinated by Mossad (probably) because he was building superguns for Sadam Hussein. Seems like another von Braun: a guy so obsessed with getting to space his way that he was prepared to work with horrendous people.
Thankfully SpinLaunch is promising, and seems much less politically volatile.
So long as you only need to send 10 express deliveries in a day... And those deliveries can handle continuous 10.000 gs for an hour while the thing spins up... And you're willing to pay the more than 100x price for delivery at $2500 per kilogram. Then sure, the next big thing!
@@Fluugan When you think nobody would buy it there is always that one insanly rich lunatic who prooves that there is a market for everything, no matter how small.
@@thealmightyaku-4153 Spin launch is all spin and it's a dead end. The HARP project was moderately successful in that it got to over 100km altitude. If a second stage been developed perhaps it would reach orbit. Spin launch wont even get to space.
The HARP space gun guys actually stopped because they knew even if they succeeded it would not be financially competitive with SpaceX.
@@stephenhumble7627 ???? SpaceX did not exist in 1967 when the HARP project stopped due lack of govt funding ????
Wondering how the fuels needed to move a satellite into an exact orbit will react to the pressures of spin-up and how durable will the rocket motor components have to be to survive these centrifugal forces that are far beyond those present in a traditional launch.
The only part of the rocket engine that might pose a problem is the pump (half of rocket science is about pumping the fuel in the **first stage**), but given it goes directly to a second stage you have simpler options like using a pressurizing fluid and pushing the fuel out. In fact they might be able to use a monopropellant, so they don't have to carry any oxygen, that might explain why their rocket is so compact.
Yeah I have trouble seeing the market for this when it comes to payload, who's going to specifically make payloads to withstand 100G's just to drop the first stage of a launch system, that has to use a shoddy second+ stage due to aforementioned G load.
@@ernestuz Thats even assuming their gonna need a pump lol. Modern SRBs can litterally be shut off and controlled like a liquid fuel rocket engine.
idk much about rockets but SRBs prolly can survive more G's since it looks so simple.
Agreed; I'm not an engineer, or even someone who's taken advanced physics... but the fuel tank is going to have to be beefy to support a couple hundred kg's of fuel at 10,000g (on one side of the projectile, at that); then there's the consideration of fuel having an ignition pressure, especially a monopropellant. I'm sure they've thought of these things, of course, but to a layman, some of the more complicated problems seem insurmountable.
For the balance weight on the opposite end that would need to release at the same time as the projectile. Could you use a chamber of water that releases? As to not damage the wall of the inside?
The counterbalance would impact with the force of a battleship shell, including explosives on a full sized model. There is not much you can do to limit the damage.
Have they considered a movable counterweight up the arm. So as it spins you could do fine adjustment, but upon release you rapidly pull the counterweight up inside the arm toward the centre. My first thought would be to have a brake on the central rotating point so the rope holding the counterweight would wrap around the shaft on release but brake let's go just before the counterweight fully retracts so the weight is held close to the shaft but not hitting the shaft.
A potentially better idea might be to use a disk, with multiple release mechanisms to launch multiple payloads in one launch session. Releases would have to be timed though to prevent payloads from colliding with each other, but the weight difference from one side of the disc to the other would be less than that of the arm.
@@Nurse_Xochitl i thought about that but i think they are too close to tolerance to survive a half lap around unbalanced. another thought was a container of water with outside edge opening like bomb doors to release the payload and just let it run into a drain.
Looking forward ro see Thunderfoot's or the Common Sense Sceptic's answer to this video.
He busted Spinlaunch already: ruclips.net/video/9ziGI0i9VbE/видео.html
I'm really curious about the release mechanism, because it seems there is some residual angular momentum of the vehicle as it exits the tube, making it come out just a little bit sideways. Do they release the front, then the back, at the same point in the arc, or is it all one mechanism? I think releasing the front and back a millisecond or two apart would allow the back to be torqued around and stop that rotation. That would reduce drag and oscillations in the first moments of flight.
The angular momentum is zero as the tether creates the circular path. Released from the circle equals a tangent to the circle......
It seems the wobble is induced by going through the plastic vacuum seal. We shall see though when they implement the doors.
@@eastockerable You've got two reference frames. One is with respect to the center of the chamber. That gets zeroed out as soon as it's released, you are correct about that. But the other is the orientation of the projectile itself. In a reference frame which follows the position of the projectile but remains oriented to the Earth's coordinate system, the projectile is rotating about itself. That doesn't go away just because the centripetal force of the tether stops accelerating it. That acceleration is linear in the projectile's local space, but the world is moving in a circle around it. You stop the linear acceleration but the world is still spinning. That part is very obviously not zero from the footage. You can try it yourself, hold on to some long thin object like a broom stick, spin around in a circle with a stiff wrist, and let go. It will fly in a straight path (minus gravity) but it will turn sideways.
@@DFPercush I was thinking this was the cause myself. Glad I wasn't crazy. Thanks for the explanation breakdown!
@@DFPercush which is exactly the reason, why IMHO this will never work. They are imparting to many vectors to the ascending rocket, to make it a viable way. All the other solutions, that were mentioned at the beginning of the video, where straight "cannons", that strictly imparted the upwards vector. That is why they worked. This "monstrosity" creates a tumbling mess.
Please explain to me why this idea of centrifugal acceleration is better than linear acceleration of the same payload in a huge gun. In both cases, the challenge is that the payload withstand a huge acceleration remaining functional after it.
The centrifugal acceleration a = V²/R (R being the radius of the centrifuge).
The acceleration in a gun of a length L is approximately a = V²/2L (in reality it is more complicated). Therefore, if R = 10 m, V = 2000 m/s, L = 5 m, we deal with the same acceleration of about 4000000/10 = 400000 m/s² or 40000 g.
Constructing such a gun must be incomparably simpler than the above-mentioned centrifuge. Where is a catch?
well i would imagine the cost right? they only spend 6k spinningup the arm for 2 launches and if your using a gun with a glass propellant it cant go anywhere near mach 6 because of the rate of gas expansion
You don't consider the nature of acceleration omitting time.
@@user-hb7py7xy7b Do you mean that the real acceleration in a gun (unlike in my approximation) is not constant, being huge at the moment of explosion and then diminishing at the exit? If so, I can guess, that the initial acceleration in a gun may be much higher than in a centrifuge so that the payload may not withstand the acceleration in a gun. Did you mean exactly this?
@@alexandergofen1771 exactly. Payload in centrifuge picks up speed more linear.
I'm not sure the door mechanism problem is as complicated as it seems. Assume that at the moment of launch, only the outer door is actually closed (as the inner door could be opened any time prior to launch, requiring no great speed or precision). Once the missile clears the inner door, a single sensor and 2 actuators blast the inner door shut and the outer door open simultaneously. That's the entirety of the synchronisation. Resetting the doors can be done any time between launches.
I’m surprised that they didn’t just call a shipyard for the vacuum chamber. The double bottom tanks on ships are built to withstand more than 1 atm of pressure because of hydrostatic loads, and shipyards will have the experience, equipment, and workforce to easily and cheaply produce something like that.
theyre all booked up for the next five years and it wouldn't come with a warranty of fitness for purpose.
@@hardrays First thing I thought of. Even the shipyards building Navy ships are backlogged just from supplying our peacetime needs. If the Russia or China situations flare up, we would be stuck cleaning the cobwebs and naval historians out of the bilges on our mothballed fleet elements.
@@docferringer "naval historians" lmao
Withstanding pressure and vacuum are two vastly different things...
The project is nonsense as is.
@@MachinaExSanguinem There are probably a lot of reasons why shipyards aren't the move here, but this isn't one of them. Vacuum and pressure are exactly the same thing... the force exerted on a vacuum chamber "by" the vacuum it holds is really just external pressure similar to that experienced by ships.
Amazing explanation of SpinLaunch, their challenges and their feats thus far!
Can we throw satellites to space? Sure, I can, just give me one. I played college ball you know, could've gone pro if I hadn't joined the Navy, but I bet I can throw your satellite into orbit. How? Nanomachines, son.
Something I'm curious about is could can we actually take advantage of the difference in temperature far below ground to use as energy as was claimed in the science fiction novel Foundation.
Could we perhaps use that to than build rocket ships near the tops of mountains, than when launching them, roll them down o rails with a jump at the end to give them momentum and overcome a lot of the initial Inertia resistance?
The only thing that I think will be the hardest part to overcome will be once the projectile is released then the balance will be off and at that speed spinning it will be hard to keep it from ripping itself apart. Also the multiple launchs without losing vacuum sounds good and yes the doors will prevent them from losing it all but how do they mount the next projectile onto the launcher without opening the system.
@@mrstring4592 yep that was my bad for commenting while watching the video instead of waiting until the end lol.
What payloads can withstand 10k G? I can't imagine there are very many.
Between the VERY limited weight (microsats or smaller) and the VERY HIGH G-loads, I don't imagine they really will need the capacity for 5-10 launches per day.
Flinging bombs, otoh... They seem pretty well set up for that.
10k G sounds like a lot, but really isn't. If you drop your phone face-flat on the floor, the impact decelleration will be about 2,000g. Also, 200kg is a fairly reasonable chunk of payload - early version Starlink satelites were 220kg, and they were only economically feasible for SpaceX to launch them because they needed a whole load of them on the same orbital trajectory - that means no more searching for rideshare buddies, making a lot more small payloads both economically feasible and practical.
I don't know much about liquid rocket fuel, but this gizmo is a giant centrifuge that could separate the elements of the fuel. Not sure how well the rocket engine components will hold up to that much sustained G-force either.
@@DanUpdegraff Most liquid fuel rockets use hydrogen and oxygen in separate tanks, not much chance of those separating because of G forces.
@@apveening No. Most use kerosene and liquid oxygen
@@hippomormor In that case I can see the different kerosene fractions separating, could get problematical with the heaviest fractions.
My question, how exactly are the components especially the solder joints going to take that stress at takeoff. May be sealed environment but I can just about guarantee the contaminates and trapped gases will fracture the solder joints. As the way a singer can break glass the the vibrations will compromise them for sure.
I work for a company that has a large power trading desk. That power cost is massively OVERSTATED, the pure power cost between intersection grid points is more like $2.50 per MHW. I don't know what their infrastructure cost amortization, delivery and specific type of generation costs are. But even with the numbers they are using, power draw is the least likely to break their budget.
How can the centrifuge release the payload in 1/3,600 of a second figuring 10 rotations per second and and a window of 1 degree angle at best ? It will be interesting to see how the release mechanism works.
I doubt it will work. And it's not the onl problem
This release mechanism is a huge challenge. And getting that wrong just once would be catastrophic.
Thats interesting, even with the compensation from the thrusters for stabilization
but you can already see it working in the 1/3 scale Version. Of course you have bigger tolerances there but you can always improve these
@@youareliedtobythemedia your doubt alone is meaningless, provide actual questions, with hard data as to why you don't think it'll work, and then post your comment. You look like a child posting something like this tbh.
This was an impeccable documentary. No fat on it at all and explained exceptionally well.
how so 42 minutes is a lot!
You guys should look into a radial style vacuum pump on your spinny motor for the launch system. Pull the vacuum as you spool it up to launch. As you reach vacuum, the pump should have less friction. I dunno. You guys got more time than I do, I'm just high.
I thought that spin up was a great way too, push the molecules to the outside edge, for vacuum capture...
Instead of center draw.
From a drum.
"That's just the tip..." AMAZING 😮
22:08 releasing a 10 ton counterweight at mach 6 into a building seems a bad idea. But I suppose a 60 ton weight at Mach 1 is much easier to handle, hmm?!
or 60000 tons at Mach 0.001, 0.35 meters per second, much more managable :D
@@deadbeef576 ✓
When I first heard of SpinLaunch's idea, I though "moving the rocket-fuel away from the launch-vehicle? That makes a lot of sense", from there it just becomes an engineering problem. After the engineering problem it becomes a mere scaling-of-economics problem.
Sure, several hurdles to overcome - but I never agreed with the kneejerk "impossible!" reactions, and I for one will keep watching their efforts and hope it they're successful.
Their energy-demands also sound like they can be a MUCH greener launch system than any "pure rocket" solution.
I don't understand why everyone is talking about "negative" reactions, I've scrolled far into the comments and don't see any. I do know there's a lot of weirdly obsessive Musk fanboys that seem to hate any space project if it isn't SpaceX, which is strange as Musk himself supports other projects as ALL groups that try to go out into space are welcome!
@@tevarinvagabond1192 just watch thunderfoot's video on why this is stupid
The so called 'knee jerk' impossible response was infact a well articulated critique of DOZENS of points of failure and commercial infeasability in the concepts. The whole project smacked of an attempt to defraud ignorant laymen investors by presenting a solution that simple enough for them to understand and misapply their day-2-day understanding of physics too. The acceleration here is going to destroy any payload in existence, payloads already cost more then the launches they go on, so no one is going to redesign their payload to withstand 9k g's even if the launch was free.
@@tevarinvagabond1192 If you want the really short condensed version of why this is incredibly dumb, this video points out the problem but glosses right over it. It's at about 5:45. This thing has to pull a sustained 10,000 Gs...
You would literally be better off just firing the payload out of a cannon. The G forces are about the same and the payload doesn't need to sustain them for anywhere near as long.
And you know what? You *could* do that. They're trying to accelerate a 200kg payload to mach 6. Iowa class Battleships lobbed 1 ton shells at about mach 2. 200x6 = 1200 and 1000x2 = 2000. 2000/1200 = 1.66 And these numbers are rounded *heavily* in spin launch's favor.
So every time an Iowa class battleship fired one of it's guns, it did so with 66% *more* kinetic energy than this contraption wants to obtain and it could fire each gun about twice per minute. What's this thing gonna do? Twice per day?
Just simplify away from all the needs of a battleship and reduce it to 1 stationary gun without all that armor plate and ship stuff and war fighting stuff and you have something *far* more capable than this design.
Oh, wait. They did that already. It was in this video. They called it project harp.
@@ColonelSandersLite the problem with using Guns (which we did ij the sixties with harp which actually use modified naval gun barrels) was that it would cause a small earth quake every time the gun fired and the boom was loud enough to break windows miles away and was generally not very good. This seems to have greater potential than a gun and generally less negative effects on the surrounding area also harp took a long time to reload and get ready to fire since every time the wanted to load they had to lower the gun then take the old casing out put a new one in and raise the gun and with the immense shoclmof the firing they had to keep everything pretty far from the site of the gun itself. This may be possible through the use of railguns or coil guns given they have much less recoil and Don need to be absolutely huge to achieve the same velocities
(Edit) also if harp was truly cheaper then I guarantee you the government would have jumped on the idea however it wasn't at least not back then.
If you would max this out it probably work, like putting it on a mountain or something, putting helium in it etc.
I am wondering if the counterweight can't be moved inwards to balance the centripetal force rather than ejected. A single articulation should be able to do this, with the counterweright extending as velocity increases simply by acting as a balance and when the payload is released the payload arm could move inward , pulling the counterweight in at the same time like a centrifugal clutch.
I was having trouble finding videos of this machine on RUclips and after trying a few generic names I searched "NASA yeet machine" and found all kinds of videos of the spin launch immediately
Amazing work Brian & team. This was a really fun and inspiring watch.
I have no idea whether or not this project will work. But I'm glad that we have people who are willing to take risks and try anyway (especially given the number of armchair engineers in the comments who are not simply skeptical, but convinced that it can't work).
_"I have no idea whether or not this project will work."_ I do! This will be built exactly one week after cows invent fusion powered automobiles.
@@RockinRobbins13when this works, that slogan will sell for thousands on shirts. Thomas Frank has a point about "armchair" engineers. I can guess from my engineering education, but I know I won't know for sure until I put it to practice. University sucks
@@busterdafydd3096 The laws of physics still exist no matter how hard you try to engineer your way out.
Some of us are actual engineers who are convinced it can't work. And even if it could work, a simple gun is cheaper and easier and does the same thing.
@@LarsLarsen77 That is what I was thinking ... why not use just big gun?
It makes more sense to build launch system high on hill (like Mauna Kea observatory is at 4200m), to go beyond that thick atmosphere.
1. Why do they keep the vacuum inside the chamber, after launch? How are they loading the payload in vacuum.
2. Instead of a spinner in the middle, why not use friction less tracks on the walls to get it up to speed.
That would be a more interesting challenge and you could probably launch more than a pebble into space if you succeed.
1. This awnsered in the video. Because then they don't have to get the entire thing to vacuum again if they want to relauch quickly. Also, the arm is still spinning when air would rush into an unsealed chamber, likely damaging it. As for loading a new payload under vacuum, it's mentioned they want to create compartment that could seal around the arm and repressurize a small part of the camber for that purpose.
2. I take it you mean there would still be some large drum type structure, but instead of an arm, tracks would run along the inside of the curved drum wall? Now you need to reinforce that entire wall since the effective weight increase of the payload would still apply. Also, you mention frictionless tracks, do you mean magnetic levitation? If so, that would be likely be difficult, as the tracks would have to levitate the equivalent mass, of, what was is, a lot of falcon heavy's. All that effective weight would have the footprint of a van, so the magnets needed to levitate that are probably out of the technical capabilities of mankind at the moment. These problems could be alleviated by decreasing the curvature of the chamber wall, but this would make the chamber larger, which in turn would be more diffucult to pull vacuum.
Those doors would have to be on a cylinder where maybe many doors are involved but 2 doors are being used. Each door would have to be moved at a max 90 degree angle. When launch vehicle approaches the first door opens only 90 to 180 degrees max and moves to the right ( or left)at the same time , and at the same time the second door moves to the right ( or left) and closes. The sealing of these doors would be the hardest part of this marvel, only pulling pressure out with the vehicle whithout allowing pressure in.That is my guess and I'm sticking to it.
If this works, it could be a good cost-saving measure for moving small amounts of cargo. If it doesn't, the technology and lessons learned could be used for other things in the future. Things don't always translate from paper to the real world so easily. So if the stuff fail (not saying it will) the data provided from the practical application could inform other engineers of potential issues with their designs so they can work on how solve them. Either way, it's nothing but a good thing someone is even trying this whether it works or not.
It's not like we're sending massive payloads to space anyway, we already send things in pieces. 10 super cheap part launches and 1 expensive crew mission sounds revolutionary if it works out.
Use it for other things... like amusement park rides? 😀
@@mikemurphy5898 Heck yeah!
@@mikemurphy5898 same day delivery? No, the same hour.
Can someone explain to me ..... what should be the payload of that rocket , that can handle 10,000g ! I mean .... doesn't the things inside the rocket need to be exceptionally strong too ... just like the tether ? Because that means that the things inside it ,will be also 10,000 times heavier than their weight on the surface of the earth right? would that turn everything inside into a blended soup of things ? how does that works?🤯🤯🤯
So why not include a flatter nosecone the way X-15 did? Do the same rules not apply here?
Also, why begin at sea level, rather than somewhere with higher elevation? My first thought would be weather effects, but are there any other disadvantages to stationing the SpinLaunch system at say 5,000ft ASL?
Probably a matter of accessibility. Carting things to launch rockets and rockets themselves up that far would, outside of a few areas, be extremely difficult.
It's also possible that doing their research at sea level and proving it's viable. Means if they do gain access to an easily accessible location of higher elevation it's easy mode in comparison.
Set one up on the Colorado high plains, and you do eliminate a mile or so of the most dense atmosphere. You could go higher still (the major mountain passes tend to be served by both road and rail.) The biggest issue with any non-coastal site is the presence of people and structures down range.
My guess is it's negligible at hypersonic speeds
I imagine it is far cheaper to setup the spinlaunch, with its likely 100s of tons of equipment, somewhere logistically easy to deliver/stage. If you want the 1st stage to go higher, spin faster, don't pay likely millions more to stage on top of a mountain.
I have a question about the graph at 32:10. The release speed 2km/s but the altitude vs time shows it at 80km altitude in 1 second? Thank you for the video!
Have you figured out that the whole project is a scam yet?
Long term, I am optimistic that launching micropayloads without rockets will be how megaprojects can be assembled in orbit. The evolution of this is probably to eliminate the rockets completely and catch the projectiles with a tether and a very high mass counterweight already in orbit. Especially when you consider 100 days of good weather per year and 10 launches per day and 200 kg of building materials per launch, almost anything you can imagine is merely a few years of construction away.
Oh my god my mind was blown at 38:55. It makes so much sense but it was also the largest hurdle I personally thought. Of course the components are low mass, so their momentum is negligible, so they're unlikely to change their physical shape during gradual increases in g-load, because their internal weight is so much lower than their tensile strength, even under high g load
Same U spent the vid thinking how TF is the sat itself not getting crushed by itself, and him bringing up the mass factor had me smacking my head like OFC.
@RovingTroll The increase in acceleration is gradual but the decrease during release is not. The tension is released almost instantaneously exciting all the transverse vibrational modes of the rocket and payload.
Testing components in a centrifuge slowly running up and slowly stopping doesn't represent the loading during launch. The launch system itself as shown in this video is rather basic engineering.
Seeing design ideas for components that can survive that would be very interesting.
@@fuglbird - "The tension is released almost instantaneously exciting all the transverse vibrational modes of the rocket and payload. " - ALL at the SAME TIME , so ALL system-mass moves the SAME DIRECTION _AT_ the same TIME , eliminating relative forces that would have the destructive effect you describe .
*THEY* are _DOING_ - even AT this _early_ stage of
Engineering Development ,
while WE are sitting on our couches COMENTING ,
NOT having "done the math" .
I'd like to hear the noise that it will be making when a hypersonic object leaves a a vacuum and transitions into 1000mb pressure.
Not if you want to keep your ear drums intact.
It wouldn't rip your ear drums, it will evaporate them
Boom. It will sound an explosion.
You mean 1 000 000 000 nano bars
That'll be the projectile going bang, just like a high velocity bullet, say from an M1 Garand, being fired into water.
Can we release some sort of liquid from centre to the end of the counter weight part when launching the module? I hope it will balance. Ow can do the reverse on the other end. 22:37
I was thinking about how the atmosphere is a lot thinner at a higher altitude like at the top of a tall mountain. Would that create less drag on the projectiles? Would the land mass have to be restructured to accommodate the size of the facility. I don't think that there's that many places where a massive structure can be built. That doesn't include the construction of a road(s) to allow an easier access to the launch pad. It seems like the cost to build such a place would not be cheap. I guess that one possible way is that every country works together to bring down the cost. That might be less possible that working on the spin launcher.
Been searching this type of video on spin launch for a while now and did not disappoint. Great work! 😄
he completely explains aspects like the required strength of the tether and the absurd speed that this thing would need to spin up to, but hasn't mentioned anything about extreme precision you would need to release the payload with.
He said the arm radius is 45 meters long. 2pir gives us the circumference of the loop the payload would be making. About 283 meters.
Mach 6 is about 2000 meters per second
2000/283=about 7 rotations per second
7 rotations=about 2500 degrees per second
1 degree every 23 milliseconds
They probably only have a tolerance of plus or minus a tenth degree because the arm is so long and one tenth of a degree is about 8 cm
so if they are more than 3 milliseconds off (at best), the payload would be destroyed along with the vacuum chamber and there will probably some sort of implosion due to the pressure difference
If you have a problem with my math and estimates, do it yourself moron.
The actual precision required is likely even higher because of the long cylindrical exit chamber that the payload has to fly through without hitting the walls or the sides of the doors.
Not to mention that the doors also have to act with the same insane precision
This, while not impossible, seems like a major challenge that wasn't even mentioned in this video!!!!! which makes me doubt weather real engineering is being critical and inquisitive here or just sucking up to them like a fanboy.
We are not all just bashing this video, real engineering, and Spinlaunch for the sake of being negative. We all have serous and extremely valid doubts about the sucess of such a system. Why not try to address our questions rather than silencing them?
I do not think this is impossible, but I'm curious how they are going to deal with all those problems - one in particular I never heard answered is that g-loading is one thing, especially since g's are going to increase gradually as it spins up, but at the moment of launch payload would go from 10 000g to ~0g of ballistic trajectory in like a couple milliseconds.
Wouldn't everything that is compressed like that just spring back up and destroy itself? That's something a centrifuge can't show you, as it will also have to spin down over time.
I’m not physicist but I don’t imagine the removal of g forces acts the same way as the addition of g forces. I.e the material wouldn’t violently spring back, just naturally adjust in the absence of 10,000 g.
@@TheShortStory imagine it’s like pressing a spring down with your finger and then suddenly letting go vs gradually let it go back to its original size.
Climbing a ladder while drinking coffee "Safety third!". Haha, I like these guys. Also, 13:57, both mechanical air pump styles he sited would be superchargers, not turbochargers. The latter being an impeller wheel turned by the flow of exhaust gasses, the former being a screw type mechanically turned kind of thingy.
They could use a mechanism like an inertia battery, and avoid problems with the cost of the vacuum, or the stabilizer. And also will have to design another way to drop the inertia rocket :)
But idk, I'm gonna study the problems and see what i am not seeing😅
The resistance to G forces within the payload was my main concern from the beginning. Im glad that the issue was tackled in the last chapter of the video, but to be honest im not fully satisfied.
Having the electronics already strong enough is half the battle. having a structure that supports itself + the electronics is a different game imo to the soda can example which only needed to support itself and is designed to be as strong as possible and not to have PCB and solar mounted to it. Where you are testing the camera as an example for the sturdiness of components i spotted a fairly hefty machined bracket.
I like how they changed the soda can into something that can't hold soda.
I would like to see what monster of a fuel tank they are using that can handle the fluid inside it pushing at 10 000g. Like the rocket is 1m wide. If the fluid inside is about the density of water it would create a pressure of about 1000 bar. We are talking some seriously hefty boy fuel tanks here. If they were launching at 7km/s and basicly needed the rocket for manuevering I could imagine it working but they need to add about 6km/s of delta v and their rocket will be vastly less efficient than most.
and really, what USEFUL payload could handle 10,000g. Foods? Fuel? Machines? I agree that the engineering could fix the launch components, but really... what could we send?
@@garethpatterson1504 food, water, and raw materials. All very important stuff that will certainly be needed in space travel, and it would be better to send up the heavy stuff in a way that you don't need to add more fule to compensate for more weight.
@@forgetfuldullahan5468 agreed. there's lots of high density stuff we would need in space, and this is a great way to send it.
I've heard of spin launch 2years ago in a related topic of debris field orbitting us and future disruptions. This was heavily informative with the updates. Thank you
To be honest, I never thought they would get this far. I'm extremely pleased to see that I was wrong. I love the concept.
I can't wait to see its first orbital launch! Great video!
Not going to happen. Their own figures can't get a payload into orbit without a booster, and we are decades away from building one that can handle the g forces they need to use to launch in the first place.
I was kind of surprised. Regarding the counterweight.
I figured they would utilize magnetic technology... Or maybe fluid dynamics or something like. used as a counterweight.
I'm an idiot so I don't know how that would work ... but with electromagnets similar to those used in plasma confinement... I just figured they could get the magnetic field oriented when and where they need it more reliably then dropping a huge counterweight.
Considering the composites.... I didn't think it would be much of a problem but obviously I don't know what I'm talking about ....its just I was thinking the first few times I watched it
I myself am a Computational Science major but i am already surrounded by engineering students and this video and especially the reaction to the airlock door speed perfectly summed up why i love engineers. There is no other group of people who can be so happy about a fast closing door because engineering in itself is nothing but a bunch of children not caring if something is possible but with the needed stubbornness to just make it work somehow damn it and in the end it's either amazing or it leads to something new to be curious about
heylo Ip lives up to their profile picture
❤ 😊
Most engineers these days are the enemy of the working middle class, if indirectly. Sure, they may improve efficiency but its entirely bankrolled to screw over workers in order to enrich morally bankrupt shareholders
I appreciate this comment. Sorry it somehow garnered so much hatred from trolls.
Apparently they forget to teach you how to use punctuation in Computer Science school. And don't dumb down us Engineers. If that wasn't your intention, that's how it came across as.
On the subject of regenerative braking, I could imagine having two spin launch devices close to one another, and slowing one down to speed up the other.
that is a hell of a lot of friction to overcome
@@THESLlCK Not mechanically -- you'd end up throwing away at least 50% of the kinetic energy -- but electrically.
The first spin launch, which just sent up a satellite, and is in need of slowing down, spins an electrical generator.
The power from the generator is transmitted to a nearby second spin launch, whose electric motor consumes the electricity being produced by the generator.
The short distance between the two spin launches means little energy is lost to electrical resistance, and, more importantly, reduces how much power is needed from the grid.
Would it be any help to use the braking motion for electrical generation?.. that spin would have to provide a few sparks?..lol.. could at least microwave a couple of day old shrimp burritos without risking stomach cramps I recon....?
Regenerative braking will return peanuts, not worth it.
@@pfa231 At least 40% usually
For your issue to balance the spinner, you should launch 2 projectal launch the same time. Twice launch per one spin. No need to launch one rocket payload per spin. Which is the advantage of spin. It's like SpaceX need to launch two Falcon 9 rockets the same time, but you only spin once.
Wouldn't that decrease the velocity at which each rocket is launched?
This would not only be very difficult but also bring about significantly more risk. The timing to launch just one is still a major issue. The real reason the double launch wouldn't work comes from keeping the vacuum integrity.
*So I have a question:* Why is it necessary to preserve the vacuum of the centrifuge launcher? I get it that creating the vacuum is very difficult, takes a lot of energy, etc. and you want the vacuum there so you can reuse it right away. *BUT* to reload the launcher, you have to destroy the vacuum completely so you are saving a vacuum for absolutely nothing. It makes no sense to me unless you have *MULTIPLE* projectiles loaded at the same time and launched within minutes of each other.