Why not use birds to fly the satellites into orbit. I would use African Swallows.
I was picturing a carrier catapult a couple miles long..
“Spinlaunch will subject the satellites to ten thousand times the force of gravity,”
Maybe they could add voter registration and mail-in ballot boxes at their launch site for public support.
Seems like more of a trebuchet than a slingshot.
Agreed a far-fetched concept. No pun intended. Well maybe a little..
The physics is just a little iffy as to whether or not it can really be done with current technology. But, that's what research is all about. It would be a really cheap way to space if it can be made to work.
The project suffered delays when celebrated rocket engineer Mike Hughes died while trying to launch his steam powered rocket
Just use anti-gravity. Not that hard. Like frozen magnets and shit.
This is the kind of startup where a huge amount of money is showered on tech yes-men until the thing finally explodes and everyone goes home.
A vacuum is nothing, it has no “pull”. The pressure of an external fluid is what can crush the container of a vacuum.
My son is a real rocket scientist, and he said about this that the technology is fun, but it’s limited to satellites that can take 10,000 Gs of force. He said there’s some that can do that, but not many, and that to place them in higher orbit, it would still need rocket capability…
I didn’t know all this information was going to be made public when I started commenting about SpinLaunch in the last report. The first shoe to drop was a CNBC article highlighting that SpinLaunch was among the companies petitioning the FCC for spectrum licenses. SpinLaunch is looking to get into the constellation business. Payloads have to be designed for their launcher so they’re going to be the ones to prove it can be done. SpinLaunch had been in dark mode. They hadn’t updated their website in forever. Then out of the blue I got a message that I should check out spinlaunch.com. I knew about the tests, of course, but holy crap! here was some of the video. I made a note of it in the last Report but we were way past page 10 at that point. Shortly thereafter, the CNBC article mentioned today was released, tweets about the test were going out, etc. SpinLaunch is obviously no longer in dark mode. Given that the only interview the CEO has given was on CNBC my take is that SpinLaunch is trying to secure their next funding round and it wasn’t guaranteed based on the results of this test. They need publicity for recruiting and for payload customers, but I don’t think this round is that – not at CNBC only. Also, for recruiting purposes, how about having a single woman in any of the launch videos! Perhaps not hiring the guy run out of BO for creating a hostile workplace for women to serve as your VP of talent acquisition would be a good start! I mean, from the sounds of it, actually getting run out of BO for that kind of behavior must really be beyond the pale. Though it appears he left SpinLaunch last month so good riddance. I have been told SL’s got a really good marketing guy who’s arranging for more interviews. I have asked our Mr. Berger be put on the list (if he hasn’t reached out directly himself with his own bona fides).Take note of the section of the new website where SpinLaunch has demonstrated reaction wheels and solar panels that work after experiencing 10,000 g’s. The website claims “no meaningful mass or cost increase” for designing for these accelerations. Those are certainly weasel words. I’ve been given a mass penalty envelope for designing various types of payloads and while I can’t share the numbers with you, I was impressed. It’s not a rounding error but the multiplier is a lot smaller than one.
What was not made clear regarding the test facility in their videos is that the vacuum chamber doesn’t point straight up. It can rotate to point anywhere from horizontal to vertical. This is visible from public roads so it’s not a secret. I mean, it’s hard to hide a ten-story building in the middle of nowhere. When it’s horizontal it’s aiming right at the mountains in White Sands Missile Range. Convenient… So what’s my take on the test launch? I encourage you to go watch [url=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JAczd3mt3X0&ab_channel=ScottManley]Scott Manley’s analysis[/i] of the video. I can’t get in any trouble pointing to things he’s figured out. Yes, the release speed was right around Mach 1 which leads to transonic flight for the projectile which is bad. Yes, there is some instability because of that. Frankly, I find that speed a bit disappointing but it wasn’t really a test of the capabilities of the launch system. It was simply a full-scale integration test of the various systems. I think it’s fair to expect higher speeds soon. The projectile was recovered and will be launched again.
Manley did reach the sales pitch all by himself. The entire SpinLaunch system is actually a pretty low power device. It’s much lower power than would be required for a rail system. You can take your sweet time coming to speed. Importantly he also works out the math that the ballistic trajectory at the design point is basically at the same altitude and velocity as a Falcon 9 booster. No, SpinLaunch cannot launch payloads to orbital speeds from their centrifuge. But what they can do is eliminate about 80% of the propellant required to reach orbit. That’s about the fraction of propellant in a booster vs. the whole stack.
One of the common objections is that aerothermal heating and drag will destroy the vehicle. SpinLaunch puts the heat load right on the screen. From that you can actually figure out the drag and the aero losses if you were of a mind. I can’t just give you the answer. I’ll just say it’s a lot lower than people usually guess. Remember, this isn’t Mach 27 at the ground. It’s “just” targeting Mach 7. Manley also commented that a system like this would be ideal for the moon where limited power would potentially limit rail launchers. The folks at SpinLaunch are quite aware of the possibilities on the moon or even on-orbit.
So what about the economics of this? Can SpinLaunch compete with Astra, Firefly, Rocket Labs, etc? The per-launch cost should heavily favor SpinLaunch. As I noted above, 80% of your propellant is eliminated with a few hundred dollars of electricity (actually most of it is regenerated per launch so it’s a lot less). Even if Rocket Labs starts recovering their first stages, recovery operations, refurb, etc. are going to cost real money. SL wins that hands down. Then it’s just a matter of whether the various small launch second stages are cheaper than SpinLaunch’s. Since the latter is a blow-down system, it’s hard to imagine that will be the case. The per-launch cost should certainly benefit SL. However, that ignores the investment in the launcher. It’s got to be amortized over a number of launches and that’s going to require a bunch of launches to make it viable. And that’s where the real economic advantage is going to come in.
SpinLaunch can legitimately consider a dozen launches per day. They’re going to be limited more by FCC and FAA licensing than technical limitations. Their upper stages are so drop-dead simple they can be mass produced. They need a massive cadence to make a profit. And that goes back to the comment above about SpinLaunch wants to get into the constellation launching business.
Right now if you want to put up a constellation of 1,000 satellites you have precious few options in service providers with enough cadence to meet that demand. And if you need a few hundred per year in terms of refresh that’s tough too. SpaceX can do it, obviously. But Rocket Labs and Astra aren’t going to be able to maintain the launch rate necessary for that cadence. They simply don’t have the manufacturing capacity to build that many rockets. SpinLaunch is legitimately positioning themselves to be able to send those types of systems up.