[HN Gopher] NASA will test SpinLaunch's ability to fling satelli... ___________________________________________________________________ NASA will test SpinLaunch's ability to fling satellites into orbit Author : clouddrover Score : 99 points Date : 2022-04-11 23:41 UTC (2 days ago) (HTM) web link (newatlas.com) (TXT) w3m dump (newatlas.com) | culopatin wrote: | Could we use this to launch radioactive waste into space at | higher speeds than what's needed to remain in orbit? | dotnet00 wrote: | It would still need a rocket to prevent the waste from coming | back around and striking the launch site. To not have it come | back, it'd need to be shot out at Earth escape velocity | (there's also the option of shooting it out fast enough for the | Moon to offer an assist to put things into orbit). | | Although of course that fast of a throw from within the | atmosphere is probably not practical. | [deleted] | SapporoChris wrote: | No. Escape Velocity (https://www.wikihow.com/Calculate-Escape- | Velocity) is: 11.2 km/s. | | From the article, they've only achieved 8,047 km/h or 2.23 | km/s. | | Also, flinging waste from your home into the air and hoping it | won't come back down sounds like a really bad idea. | jdmichal wrote: | Just for giggles, that works out to ~17.42 kilowatt-hours per | kilogram of mass, just for the pure kinetic energy. Then you | have inefficiencies like electricty-to-kinetic-energy | conversion losses and atmospheric drag to contend with. | | It's honestly a smaller number than I expected it to be. So I | suspect that those inefficiencies add up pretty fast. | throwmeariver1 wrote: | With the extremely limited resources of earth we can't just | throw something into space without knowing if there could be | any future use. | | Where did we put the energy dense radioactive stuff again? We | could use it... Sorry boss we yeeted it into space. | endisneigh wrote: | With these sorts of technologies I wonder if it just makes more | sense to lay whatever needs to be paid to build a space elevator | or equivalent and be done with it. | pstuart wrote: | Isn't there still the small problem of actually having the | technology exist to do it? | Arainach wrote: | What makes you think the problem is money and not materials | science? We have no substance suitable for the cable. The | closest we've come is various nanofilaments that we can perhaps | produce in centimeters, not kilometers. | endisneigh wrote: | I agree that the problem is materials science. My point is | how much money is actually being allocated towards that vs | sending stuff in space, to what end? | | I don't follow material science stuff super closely but as | far as I'm aware the investment is orders of magnitude less | than propulsion and other tech. | | Then again these things just take time unfortunately | zardo wrote: | I recall excitement that | https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colossal_carbon_tube were | just the ticket. But since there has been zilch published on | them in the last 14 years, I'm guessing the original work | couldn't be reproduced. | bluescrn wrote: | Because every fictional space elevator seems to end in | disaster? | [deleted] | ada1981 wrote: | Coolest part of this company is the founder is a (i think high | school) drop out who read some physics books and thought "this | should work." Have spent some time with Jonathan on MajikBus.co | and I appreciate the way his mind works. | green-eclipse wrote: | Here's video of a test launch from their website, if you're | curious: | | https://www.spinlaunch.com/suborbital | honkycat wrote: | Everyone called me crazy when I said eventually we will start | shipping things by dropping them from orbit. | | This is the next step in my genius idea with 0 flaws or potential | disasters | Havoc wrote: | Kinetic bombardment has been a thing (conceptually) for a | while. | | >potential disasters | | unless that's the intention | FpUser wrote: | I can only imagine what a spectacular show would it be if the | load unclips at the wrong moment. | h2odragon wrote: | Every time i see their thing i wanna build another centrifugal | BB cannon. | DrBoring wrote: | Reminds me of the centrifuges that people would build for Pumpkin | Chunkin, a competitive pumpkin throwing contest from Delaware, | USA. | | https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p2GeuWqNXWU | hitovst wrote: | How many Starship launches does it take to get SpinLaunch to the | moon, belt, etc.? | thedrbrian wrote: | You'd just put a mass driver down | | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_driver | | That way you can also launch people without having to subject | them to thousands of G. | gorgoiler wrote: | As Kerbal Space Program has taught me, it's all very well | reaching ballistic apogee but you need to apply thrust again at | apogee to circularize orbit (raise your perigee to the same | altitude as you are right now.) Otherwise you'll just come | straight back down again. | | How can this device fling a functioning rocket motor into space? | dmead wrote: | staged rockets also fling rocket motors into space. /shrug | boardwaalk wrote: | ...at _maybe_ 10g, not 10,000g. | colechristensen wrote: | Rockets already have to withstand some pretty extreme | structural challenges. The spinning would certainly involve a | bit of a different challenge but not necessarily out of scale | for things they already have to survive. | jeffwass wrote: | I think launch angle can be adjusted, it's just straight up for | the photo. Eg, see the rendering further down the page on the | grassy hill which shoots at an oblique angle. | gorgoiler wrote: | Your periapsis -- the lowest part of your orbit -- is always | the place you return to. Throwing harder or at a different | angle just determines how high you get when at your highest | point, before coming all the way back down again. | | http://www.scielo.org.mx/img/revistas/rmaa/v52n2/0185-1101-r. | .. | | If you apply thrust at A then you have the solid line: an | elliptical orbit. | | If you just throw something hard all you have is the dashed | line: go up then come back down again. | | (In this diagram, substitute "initial circular orbit" for | "surface of Earth" :) | Symmetry wrote: | That's why spinlaunch is flinging a whole rocket high into | the air rather than just the payload. | sidewndr46 wrote: | This isn't the case at all. The trap your reasoning falls | into is assuming that for some reason an object must be in | an orbit after being thrown. Obviously, an orbit comes back | to it's original position at some point. In many cases | atmospheric drag converts what would be an orbit into | burning up in the atmospheric or smashing into the ocean | somewhere. | | But if you throw something hard enough from the Earth's | surface, it absolutely does not have to return to that | position. You would just need to throw it hard enough that | it was at escape velocity. Due to air friction, the actual | speed you would need to throw the object would be flat out | absurd if on Earth at sea level. But on a body like the | moon with no atmosphere it isn't that bad at all. The bonus | to this is the direction doesn't matter at all really. | Anything other than straight down is fine. | | Now, where this does become problematic is when the | velocity you would need to achieve is higher than the speed | of light. At that point you're basically on a neutron star | or some supermassive planet. | obblekk wrote: | 10,000Gs is probably too much for electronics, but fine for raw | steel. Probably useful to have a low cost way of shooting a lot | of working material into space. | __init wrote: | They made _vacuum tubes_ survive 20,000g during WWII [1]. | Modern military applications have guidance computers packed | into individual bullets [2]! | | [1] | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proximity_fuze#Improvement_in_... | | [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smart_bullet | modeless wrote: | The problem with this is if you toss a chunk of raw steel, no | matter how fast or at what angle, it will always simply fall | back down [1]. The minimum payload for this system absolutely | requires a (extremely robust) rocket engine and propellant and | avionics to circularize the orbit at apogee. That's the only | way to achieve orbit. That puts a disappointingly high floor on | the cost per launch and launch rate. | | [1] Technically, escape velocity is also a possibility. But | it's not a useful one, as the payload is still lost. | nottim wrote: | That only holds true assuming a 2-body (earth and rocket) | system - add in forces from the sun or from the moon and you | can actually achieve orbit with only a single surface level | impulse, although it does require some pretty precise aim. | modeless wrote: | It would be super cool to use the moon to circularize the | orbit. But the orbit you'd get wouldn't be super useful, | probably. I wonder about stability as well. And the | practicality of achieving the velocity to reach that high, | and aiming that precisely. It would be really cool to see | some analysis of that. | | Another out-there idea would be to shoot things at a space | station that had a giant catcher's mitt or something. Would | it be possible to design a decelerator that would work? And | to hit it precisely with a dumb projectile from the ground? | | A third possibility would be to recover and reuse the | rocket engines en masse. Not sure how it could be done in a | way that was cost effective though. | gchadwick wrote: | Like many others I was very skeptical of SpinLaunch's claims. | Even with their successful demo launch you wondered if you'd be | able to build a viable payload (especially one with a rocket | motor, not just solid state electronics). | | Though if NASA have chosen to enter into a contract them that | gives a big credibility boost. It'll be very interesting to see | how it goes. | belter wrote: | Hopefully NASA watched this video, before making the contacts | public instead of first examining the claims privately. | | "Spinlaunch: BUSTED!": https://youtu.be/9ziGI0i9VbE | rozab wrote: | Richard Woolley springs to mind. | | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_van_der_Riet_Woolley#V. | .. | raverbashing wrote: | Ah of course it's thundrfoot. | | His phosphine "debunking" video was high on "hot takes" but | low on actual intellectual honesty | | There are ways of criticizing and going about that don't | involve patronizing and shallow dismissals | Laremere wrote: | "Busted" videos like this are low quality armchair analysis | aimed at giving giving the viewer a sense of intellectual | superiority. Saying "this solution breaks the laws of | physics" can be valid if analysis is done correctly, saying | "this problem is hard, and they haven't already solved every | single piece of it so their whole business is stupid" is not | valid. | arein3 wrote: | These types of videos have a very wide audience. Redditors | love them. | belter wrote: | I agree with you that the video could be more detailed on | some of the technical analysis. However it raises enough | technical arguments, to justify any approach to SpinLaunch | to be done in private and with a very skeptical attitude. | JacobThreeThree wrote: | Presumably NASA, who's paying for test launches, did a | more thorough analysis than a YouTuber. | belter wrote: | Only thing NASA seems to have contracted the company for | is for a technology demonstrator, of throwing a small | rocket at Mach 2. | | The article describes it like they are throwing | satellites into orbit. In reality even the far fetched | plan, is to throw a small rocket into high altitude to | save money on the first stage. Then the rocket is what | will put the satellite in orbit. | | I can't find a single reference to this agreement (yet) | in any NASA official site. Not saying it's not real, just | that I can't find an official NASA reference yet. It's | not yet listed here under the current available ongoing | agreements: | | "Current Space Act Agreements" | | https://www.nasa.gov/partnerships/about.html | attilaperez wrote: | Theranos had Walgreens, Nikola had GM... | belter wrote: | This analysis also highlights the complexity risks. They | will need to achieve Mach 10 and have a satellite capable | to handle 20,000 G... | | "Spinlaunch Feasibility Analysis": | | https://colab.research.google.com/gist/jeff- | hemingway/a3d322... | | Edit: The HARP project is also mentioned in the analysis as | a comparison. | | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_HARP | Retric wrote: | 20,000g's sounds much worse than it is. Some WWII era | guns used ammunition with complex proximity fusses | subjected to roughly 20,000g's. | | The real question is what kind of mass fraction is | sacrificed to build something to survive being spun up. | [deleted] | colechristensen wrote: | I can't tell if you're joking. | gchadwick wrote: | Well I would hope NASA is doing their due diligence. | | Perhaps though there's a big push to invest in private space | and they're not looking too closely at lower value/more | speculative prospects. | blackholesRhot wrote: | FYI I'm a Spinlaunch invesetor. | | Just watched this video. His argument for why Spinlaunch | won't work is basically: | | 1) in the video of their first test chamber (12m diameter) | there's some dirt and rust, therefore they don't know | anything about vacuums | | 2) in their first ever test fire of a projectile leaving | their 33m chamber, the projectile is wobbling, therefore they | don't know anything | | 3) in a mock up video they made of a future launch system the | headquarters is close to the launcher, which might explode if | there's a misfire, therefore they don't know anything | | 4) the founder has an uninspiring resume when you look online | | 'Add these up and there's no chance they'll succeed. What | they've done isn't as impressive as 50+ year old gunships.' | | Give me a break. Their rate of progress is exceptional. | They've already overcome so many challenges. These are weak | arguments. Doesn't mean they'll be successful. But these | arguments are weak. Some quick counter-arguments | | 1-) the 12m test chamber was a demo chamber. they were | constantly spinning it up and letting people go inside. doing | tours. stress testing new materials and arms. blowing stuff | up. if anything the fact that it was so reliable even with | the imperfections is a positive | | 2-) when someone is learning to throw a football there's tons | of wobble. spinlaunch needs to figure out a perfect spiral. | these videos were from their first couple attempts ever out | of a chamber. what they're showing is very hard. this team | has shown an ability to innovate and improve. those were | images of their first few attempts to "throw the football" | | 3-) give the team some credit. these videos are designed for | the general public. what they built already has an incredible | amount of kinetic energy. they stress tested many tethers | (past their limits) before going to this scale. when you're | picking on things as small as "they're going to kill | themselves by sitting right next to the system" you clearly | don't have much left to nitpick | | 4-) jonathan is an absolute genius. just because he has a | spartan online bio and unorthodox background doesn't mean | he's not an absolute force of nature. thunderf00t is a very | smart dude. but i'd bet anything that in a debate -- on | basically any topic -- jonathan would absolutely decimate | thunderf00t | | cheers to the builders | [deleted] | sebzim4500 wrote: | >thunderf00t is a very smart dude | | I just saw one of his videos on why Falcon 9 will never be | economically viable so I would strongly disagree with this | assessment. | belter wrote: | I think his argument about Falcon 9 was about reliability | vs reusability and he partially acknowledged he was | wrong: | | https://nitter.net/thunderf00t/status/961312911393218560? | lan... | | About the claim if he is smart or not, you might want to | watch this then reevaluate your opinion: | | https://youtu.be/5Hyy1zRZPiQ | recuter wrote: | Smart people make mistakes all the time. He has correctly | debunked a lot of scams, it is easy to get jaded and | carried away. Since he isn't an investor and doesn't have | the inside scoop it is plain to see how his nitpicking, | based on the publicly available information, potentially | led him to a wrong conclusion. | | SpinLaunch is a rather out there. I've actually had this | idea and I'm sure many others have as well. I happen to | think it can work but I was still skeptical when I first | heard of them. You can only infer so much from the | outside. | caconym_ wrote: | I really hope NASA is making better use of taxpayer dollars | than paying their decision-makers to watch clickbait trash on | Youtube. How any serious person could take this sort of thing | seriously is beyond me. | dotnet00 wrote: | I think their basic idea is sound, it'll probably eventually | function. My concerns are if it'll be worth it, since there's a | trade-off being made between fuel mass and heat shield mass, | and at least based on Scott Manley's summary video this week, | the rocket with the heat shield is close to the same mass as | the Electron rocket. In which case I'm not sure the complexity | of SpinLaunch is worth it. | | Edit: the video in question: | https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Phy3n_S3ng | | and a more honest and detailed look at the company, again from | Scott: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JAczd3mt3X0 | gnramires wrote: | I haven't seen Scott Manley's video; but if the mass cost of | a heatshield is so significant that's a problem. | | However, there's a benefit in this case: heat shield probably | scales with area (often something like mass^(2/3)), making it | progressively less significant compared to fuel mass (which | is roughly a constant fraction, i.e. it scales like | mass^(1)). I think a high altitude launch site could make a | significant difference as well (although that creates other | logistic inconveniences). Atmospheric pressure approximately | halves every 5km, and air resistance is roughly proportional | to pressure. | colechristensen wrote: | Launch conditions are already very harsh. Rockets vibrate _a | lot_. | | I have no doubt that useful payloads could be designed to | withstand the spinning as well as later rocket thrusts. | (source: a couple of years on a satellite design project in | university) | consumer451 wrote: | One other detail I've learned is that the G load increase is | incremental, not all at once. Which apparently is very | significant according to the company. | ColinWright wrote: | The G load increase is comparatively slow, but the | _release_ is pretty sudden. | | Lots of things "bounce" in funny ways when you put them | under very large loads, then release that load suddenly. | [deleted] | paxys wrote: | There is no launch contract, just a planned test. | MisterBiggs wrote: | If they can get this working reliably on Earth then I would | imagine it would work incredibly well in space. Could do (cargo) | launches from the Moon to Earth with just energy from solar | panels without any propellant. Probably would be the optimal way | to put a ton of satellites in orbit of the Sun too for something | like a Dyson Sphere. | aw1621107 wrote: | Conservation of (angular) momentum would mean that you'll need | at least some amount of propellant to compensate. The | rotational inertia that's present during/after spinup can pose | challenges for aiming as well. | excalibur wrote: | Are we in an episode of Space Force? Did I die and go to Netflix? | hilbert42 wrote: | One wonders how practical this would be given the huge G forces | involved, especially so for large complex satellites. | | However, electronics have been subjected to such high G forces as | far back as WWII but on a much smaller scale when the proximity | fuze was introduced towards the end of the War (one of its first | uses was at the Battle of the Bulge, Patton waxed lyrically about | its high effectiveness): | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proximity_fuze | | When I first heard about VT Fuzes years ago I didn't really | believe it because it didn't use solid state devices, transistors | etc. but rather a 'ruggedized' vacuum tube (this was several | years before the transistor was invented in 1947). At the time I | couldn't see how glass vacuum tubes could withstand [?]20,000Gs | when fired out of a gun barrel but somehow they did. | | Therefore, I'd imagine that upgrading to solid state devices | would allow an even higher scaling in the G department (i.e.: | relative to the VT Fuze), so it seems highly possible (perhaps | the SpinLaunch idea actually originated from VT type Fuzes, I'd | not be surprised). | ars wrote: | I see this as being far more useful to send large quantities of | fuel into orbit, and then use that fuel to accelerate to reach | the outer planets. | | Electronics and such are pretty light, the regular rockets we | have are fine for that. This is more for raw material, for | example the structural components of a space station. | vosper wrote: | There's a good Curious Droid about proximity fuses. I had no | idea how important they were to the allies. | | https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N0SgC78YFPc | hprotagonist wrote: | it's very practical, if you want to hoik weapons systems. | | people, less so. | causi wrote: | Human bodies are a tiny fraction of the mass footprint of a | space mission, and especially a deep space mission. Imagine | the cost savings of spinlaunching the pieces of a vessel and | supplies into orbit and then being able to launch an | astronaut on a rocket the size of a telephone pole. | dylan604 wrote: | human bodies might only be a fraction of the mass footprint | but they happen to be the most squishy part | tnorthcutt wrote: | Yes, that's their point - use regular rockets for the | squishy humans, and spin launch the non-squishy bits at | high-g. | ceejayoz wrote: | Or something like zero-notice "we need to get these | antibiotics to the ISS" scenarios. | jdmichal wrote: | I've seen enough movies to know that the proper response | to that scenario is to boost the ISS to escape velocity | ASAP. | duxup wrote: | I don't know how viable this is but there is something both | visceral, simple, and super futuristic about this whole idea. | | I don't know why but I'm excited about this idea. | gameswithgo wrote: | To temper your enthusiasm some: | | They cannot fling things to orbit, they can fling things very | fast but a (smaller) rocket is still needed to finish getting | to orbit. | | and G Forces are extreme so this is only suitable for payloads | that don't mind extreme G forces. | sschueller wrote: | G force isn't even the issue. It's friction from the air as | soon as the vehicle leaves the launch contraption. | colechristensen wrote: | Mach 6 or 7 at launch? No big deal to mitigate that. | | On reentry from orbit vehicles are going mach ~25. | sidewndr46 wrote: | Those kind of speeds are common at altitude, in the upper | atmosphere. | | The drag and resulting heat production at sea level would | not be as easy to deal with if you were zipping along at | Mach 25 right after launch. Even supersonic aircraft | don't run full speed (for a whole host of reasons) at sea | level. | [deleted] | gameswithgo wrote: | MongooseMan wrote: | Sorry to put a dampener on things, but Thunderf00t has already | done two debunking videos on SpinLaunch. He's rarely wrong. | | https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9ziGI0i9VbE | | https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ibSJ_yy96iE | tekno45 wrote: | Looks like one comfy armchair. | LeifCarrotson wrote: | Scott Manley also put out a video on Spinlaunch: | | https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JAczd3mt3X0 | | He...encourages caution. It's one thing to call a technology | "debunked", another to say it's very difficult or that it has | a low probability of success. | dntrkv wrote: | > He's rarely wrong | | About what? Most of his recent content is clickbait debunking | videos about stupid ideas that no serious person has ever | taken seriously. | | "Solar Roadways Debunked" Yeah no fucking shit. | AlexDragusin wrote: | > But the company says it'll be appropriate for smaller launch | vehicles weighing up to about 440 lb (200 kg) | | In this particular configuration, the rotational kinetic energy | for a 200kg load would be massive and the current materials would | not be able to withstand it and another issue would be the | release timing through the opening, as seen on the video the | margin of error would be so narrow that is likely not possible | with the current technology. I hope I am proven wrong in my | armchair assessment though. | throwawayboise wrote: | I agree the entire thing sounds completely impractical and even | if it can be made to work reliably, the number of suitable | payloads would seem to be tiny. Maybe you could launch a 200kg | billet of solid aluminum or titanium or other raw materials | that could be used in space for manufacturing of components for | a space station or Mars transport vehicle? | na85 wrote: | >In this particular configuration, the rotational kinetic | energy for a 200kg load would be massive and the current | materials would not be able to withstand it | | Got any numbers or facts to back this assertion up? | | I haven't investigated the mechanics behind spin launch, so I'm | eager to see something concrete. | ur-whale wrote: | There is a lot of skepticism around spinlaunch: | | https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9ziGI0i9VbE | | https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ibSJ_yy96iE | craz8 wrote: | If NASA had plans for a moon base, and also had plans to send | things back from there, this might become an interesting launch | capability - no atmosphere and lower escape velocity provides | more flexibility. Run it with stored solar power and it's self | contained and needs no expendable supplies | politician wrote: | That's right. This is far more compact than the equivalent mass | driver. | aidenn0 wrote: | I was so badly hoping they were building a launch loop. Still | giant centrifuges are always fun. | paparush wrote: | Neal Stephenson nods in approval. | andbberger wrote: | the orbit infrastructure in seveneves was so much more elegant | and viable than a giant centrifuge ___________________________________________________________________ (page generated 2022-04-14 23:01 UTC)