New technology aims to put a whole new spin on space travel
Vložit
- čas přidán 1. 09. 2023
- A new form of technology is trying to send items into space with an innovative new method. The SpinLaunch aims to reduce the carbon footprint of space travel by using a vacuum chamber to launch objects. Jeff Glor has more.
#news #space #technology
"CBS Saturday Morning" co-hosts Jeff Glor, Michelle Miller and Dana Jacobson deliver two hours of original reporting and breaking news, as well as profiles of leading figures in culture and the arts. Watch "CBS Saturday Morning" at 7 a.m. ET on CBS and 8 a.m. ET on the CBS News app.
Subscribe to "CBS Mornings" on CZcams: / cbsmornings
Watch CBS News live: cbsn.ws/1PlLpZ7c
Download the CBS News app: cbsn.ws/1Xb1WC8
Follow "CBS Mornings" on Instagram: bit.ly/3A13OqA
Like "CBS Mornings" on Facebook: bit.ly/3tpOx00
Follow "CBS Mornings" on Twitter: bit.ly/38QQp8B
Subscribe to our newsletter: cbsn.ws/1RqHw7T
Try Paramount+ free: bit.ly/2OiW1kZ
For video licensing inquiries, contact: licensing@veritone.com
The issue is the projectiles are limited in payload as the payload has to be designed to withstand the launch system, rather than it's primary mission upon delivery.
You're 100% correct. Hypersonic speed will put tremendous G force on any payload, so much so that unlike shells which are designed to destroy using kinetic energy, any delicate payload would be destroyed upon leaving the centrifuge vacuum.
yup not a human launch system...but it would be useful
There are a ton of issues. To mark the most important ones:
1st - the same force the projectile gets at the moment it gets yeeted, the same force goes to the opposite direction through the mechanic of this machine into the ground. The only way around this is to also release a counter weight which of course would also hit like a bomb.
2nd - The moment the projectile hits the outside air around the vacuum chamber this will be with several times the speed of sound. Now hitting a column of air at that speed goes out not too well for anything. Regardless how pointy it is. And I've not even mentioned friction heat now. :)
AEROSPACE ENGINEER HERE: That's actually a sensible comment unlike so many others.
My preferred option for smaller satellites is air launching. Its simply a well proven method for smaller payloads. It also has the issue that the vehicle and payload need careful structural design to handle the transition from level to vertical flight.
People need to be a lot more sceptical about novel technologies and even more so for ones promoted as "game changers." There's so many "game changers" these days its hard to keep up. One thing for people to look for is if something like it appeared in a sci-fi film. For example Elizabeth Holmes idea for the 1 drop of blood Theranos technology was copied from the 1997 film Gattaca that starred Ethan Hawke and Uma Thurman.
@@diymicha2 You know the Greeks, the Spartans were short stature just like this inventor and they believed that height affects smartness, the intelligence was poured into molds with a same sized jug and so didn't fill up the tall people so completely. The idea of big lunkheads is very old. You know, don't be a big lunkhead yourself. The man has done it, save your Doubting Tom breath.
"How do you get satellites into orbit?"
"We basically just throw them really hard."
Except that doesn't work, you can't throw something into orbit without another burn at the far end to circularize the orbit (Hohmann transfer) otherwise the object goes all the way around and comes back to the exact same spot you threw it from like a boomerang and crashes into Earth. You need to throw a rocket so you can get that added burn once at altitude.
@@wally7856 I don't think it's that challenging from an orbital mechanics standpoint. I think it's more a problem of designing functional satellites that can survive the rotational acceleration necessary for an exit velocity well above their target orbital velocity (~17k mph), and developing materials that will protect the satellite from compression heating within Earth's atmosphere. The latter is orders of magnitude more difficult than atmospheric re-entry, which is already reasonably challenging.
@@mifune9634 The electronics in the Excalibur artillery shell are designed to withstand +20,000g's and -8,000 g's. Same with Canada's HARP program in the 60's that would fire space going payloads from a gun (largest artillery in the world) to about 187 km (116 miles) high hitting 20,000 g's. They never achieved orbital velocity (which would have been achieved using an on board rocket in the shell, not from the launch itself) before funding was cut.
how in the world do they possibly get the timing down too that precision too launch out perfectly through that machine. This is truly incredible.....
Maths
AI
They just have a guy with really good reaction time and a trigger lol, in reality electronics can easily time things on the scale of nano seconds.
They just guess. They've been lucky so far
There is a guy sitting behind the projectile when it spins who release when the other guy outside waves the release flag.
In the videos you can see some of them go through at an angle which would slow them down incredibly. They had this issue months ago, if they fix it great, but the launches aren’t consistent. If they can get it working properly you could send satellites in pieces and connect them via a remote control or something
How it doesn't destroy itself upon release is quite impressive, that's a huge amount of unbalanced weight to be spinning.
This is the exact thing that first came to mind for me too. They must have had tests where it exploded before it exited the chamber.
There is a lot of wasted energy in this system. to transfer 100% of the rotational kinetic energy into the projectile, the moment arm would stop completely. The fact that the arm keeps spinning around the same rpm after release indicates that this safety factor has obviously been considered into the projectile design.
The rotating arm has a large reservoir of snake oil.
This video doesn't show it, but there is a counter weight on the other side of the arm that releases when the payload is released. So there is no unbalance. In the future if they ever get the system working they will have payloads on each side of the arm, and they will be released one after the other. They say the bearings should be able to handle the unbalanced spinning for until the second payload is shot out.
How many of you noticed the missle came out semi-sideways so it was a complete failure.
At this point I am beginning to think that this is really a stealth pitch to the military instead of a space launch system. Change the launch arm to a wheel so you can launch multiple projectiles at once, spin it up to sub orbital speeds and you could deliver a dozen or more payloads weighting multiple tons each to any point on the planet.
Even if you can only get the range up to a thousand miles or something along those lines it would still make for one hell of an artillery piece.
well, they wouldnt need to be stealth about it as there arnt many providers. Even the contracting done for jets is a mere formality. It would also simultaneously advertise to adversaries or competitors, for that matter. There is zero benefit to be public about it if the intent is purely military use.
Military also coulnt care any less about green tech and they're not scraping for funding, since war is one of the greatest businesses.
If they wanna advertise, its indeed commercial space
why the hell would you want this to be a weapon... classic american
It would have unlimited range as it is used to launch things into orbit. Good way to create and fire a large number of mini ICBMs
@@rpm749 Problem with that statement? I am not American. ^.^
It'd have the same problem every previous space gun (Nazi's V-3, Project Babylon gun) would have - it's easily targeted and blown up because it's immobile. We have a gazillion smallsat rocket launch companies the military could tap at any time for launching large suborbital payloads.
The exit release off by microseconds, the projectile slams into the exit port walls and the whole thing blows up. Just a matter of time as to when that happens. In the meantime, no people can be launched with it, and the electronics of most devices get shattered without major reinforcement, adding to weight. Really, a rocket launch system. That means the base should be pivotable on a rotational axis to aim it.
this is just another "green" innovation that is in fact a complete waste of money.
“No people can be launched with it.” You are 100% correct. As a person who spent way too much time in a human centrifuge I can say from experience: the general public cannot begin to understand exactly what this would do to a human subject.
This is Great. I cannot fathom but admire the imaginations and greatness of human mind. Support this from Kenya.
As large as that structure is, I find it hard to believe it contains 2.2 million tons of steel. That would be about 30% of the total annual UK steel output and be worth at least 4 billion dollars, without cost of construction.
News stations seem to be loosing quality as we watch.
Yes I wish the news would proof their facts but the spokesperson did say "that's right" in response to the amount. If the news would have thought for a moment when reading it back before publishing, they would have known 2.2 million tons would be impossible. It doesn't sound edited or cut even the you can't see them talking at that moment. He probably meant to say pounds. And the spokesperson probably thinking about his next point when he said that's right.
Can't believe anything they say today
There is so far zero evidence that this approach can scale to the speeds and masses needed to be useful.
SpinLaunch doesn't talk or outright bullies anyone who tries to question the necessary engineering breakthroughs to make this work.
Yep.
There is some evidence.
What evidence are you referring to?@@djb5320
Truths don't mind being challenged, lies HATE being challenged.
@@djb5320 there comes a point where the monetary expense and engineering requirements outweigh the potential benefits in projects. It’s just not worth it.
Its a great idea but it would mainly have to be used for payloads that arent easily breakable unless they have a mechanism to protect the payload from the G-force being generated.
The first rear a will be boxes of rubbers to our colonies on Mars.
@@sclogse1 Speak English
I am skeptical that this technology would work. To many issues I can see with this, for example the machine would need to be much larger and spin much faster to reach the needed escape velocity needed. The larger it gets would make it harder to reach the near vacuum the needed inside the chamber. As the machine spins faster how will they keep it stable and have it release at the right moment.
The size this thing would need to be to launch anything of use to space would be crazy
it would not be crazy if u realize it has to burn out when leaving the machine
compared that to rockets?
The machine is ridiculous, ludicrous. Won't work.
Nah, I could see this being used for small/micro sized satellites. But yeah anything bigger sounds very problematic and you can forget ever trying to launch people from that thing.
A lot of satellites are quite small, actually. They are made to be as small as possible.
ACME Centrifugal Space Cannon. Wyle E. Coyote. Super Genius.
Amazing. Happy that we have clever folks like this in the US
The passengers can't handle the g force😂
This sounds like something that works in theory, but is massively impractical in reality.
Nobody is doing the math. Carbon fiber isn't infinitely strong. It pokes a hole in the launcher each time it's used. 😃
This has been debunked by Thunderf00t
Oh, yeah... not a hope of it working in reality.
BINGO! This thing is a great idea in the exact same way a Hyperloop is a great idea.
But trying to progress it beyond the "idea" stage takes genuine and determined stupidity.
theory will only take you so far
Wouldn't this be more efficient if this is done closer to the equator so as to leverage the earth's spin?
That depends on where you want it to go.
Yes the closer you are to 0latitude the more angular momentum you get from Earth...no matter where you want to go, assuming orbit is desired.
That's why KC Florida, Brownsville Texas were selected keeping in in the Continental US for supply, and why the ESA uses Equatorian South America.
yeah, but this is only a prototype. I'd assume if this ever gets off they'll get sufficient money to also start operations somewhere like french guyana
@@puncifikator3870 the investors can't easily visit the cool science fiction gates compound as easily in French G. ESA put theirs there as it is government funded. NASA and CCP-SA put theirs due to the cold war. This one is a pitch for investors. Easy to visit.
This one just goes straight up and at Spaceport New Mexico, they aren't actually permitted to break the Karman line (100km altitude), so they can't achieve orbit from New Mexico anyways. This was a proof of concept and is now the best test bed in history for G-force loading.
It is always pleasure and pleasing to meet ones who were supposed to work. Thankyou congratulations. Thankyou for visiting me.
Impressive to see how far they came. I saw this from the start.
Wow! The projectile reaching maximum speed and then hitting the thickest part of Earth's atmosphere, I'd like to see that, from a distance.
Don't forget it's starting in a vacuum too. I want to count the big pieces
@@Rouzer29 The only place something like this would work is if it was built on the top of Mount Everest
@@getl0st maybe if we built another Burj Khalifa on top of Mt Everest then placed the spin launcher on top of that, then with really thin atmosphere it could work!
This may be an improvment on my idea of using a giant rubber band to slingshot obects into space. One difference is that our plan involves launching the object parallel to the ground to the horizon instead of up because we would have to dig a hole deep enough to pull the rubber band back far enough. The next impediment is that there is not a long enough flat surface on which to mount the slingshot because the Earth is curved. We are still working on that.
Are you currently accepting new and early investors for your start up ? Because if so, I'd like to get in on the ground floor before you take your company's idea public so that I could potentially earn a small fortune from the successful _"launch"_ of your IPO !
The rubber tree is probably endangered ( again) I doubt dupont would help. How would that work if it just orbits and FALLS?
Wright u r sir, ok, not the same concept as Jules Vern getting shot out of giant cannon, but, wth do I know, kind of curious to see just how far this thing could (chuck) something🤔. cowboyboilermaker
You put the front on top of a mountain and the projectile down at sea level at the end of the horizon and you still don't enough energy to orbit.
Over time it should flatten out. Be patient.
Incredible work !
This is a very interesting innovation. I hope it really takes off.
Begs the question......the projectile and payload must both withstand immense G-loading, so that would seriously limit the types of permissible payload and also require intense engineering of the projectile and any systems/components carried. Seems like a very limited scope launch system albeit much lower cost per mission. Most of the G-load concerns would go away if this was a linear launch system but would require an extremely long distance.....about 400 miles if acceleration is 5g to reach 5000 mph (guestimated velocity to reach low-earth orbit as per this video) which likely explains his circular launch concept.
Tragically this design limits the type of cargo to VERY simple configurations. Additionally, people can NEVER be in this. It's a nice way to sling up a few random things but a linear inclined accelerator with beamed power to the in-flight projectile IS likely the only way forward. Just need to find a nice 2 mile long 40+ degree incline that is tectonically stable, not important to the ecosystem, and can have a small city of support staff......yeah it's going to be a WHILE.
31 miles for 5,000 mph
The problem is getting it at a decent final launch angle.
Might want a gentle curved slope up the Andes. Brazil might object to the shock-wave.
Among so many other issues. This is a money making scam. Look at the spokes person. Used car dealer much?
@@-danR Peru was always my estimate, nice being close to the Panama canal too. However, no way to have it all done on ground, will NEED to beam power to the projectile (or maybe a second support/transfer projectile). So that's why I am not convinced of the 31 miles thing.
Believe or not, Spinlaunch did actually consider this. . Your average smartphone or gopro can handle Spinlaunch G forces - they tested it. So can the solid state memory and electronics of most modern satellites.
Otherwise there would be no point in developing this concept.
They've spent a LOT of time testing and working out what can and can't be sent into space this way before they bothered to go ahead with the project. They think ahead a lot more than some CEOs one could name!
Looking at this system there many issues:
1. How out of balance with the system be at full size when you release the mass? The higher the rotational velocity the greater the force applied. This is a V^2 relationship, where when you double the velocity the force increases by 4. When the mass is released, the force for the counterbalance will be in the opposite direction will be the same and unless there is somewhere to either drop the mass or stop the rotation rapidly, the system will fly apart.
2. At 5,000 files per hour debris from the breakable seal holding the vacuum with be very damaging to the projectile launched. At 5,000mph that is the equivalent to 7,333 feet per second. Anything capable of holding 14psi of pressure out in an opening that large is going to cause a lot of damage. Having the projectile breaking through it may look cool, but it is a disaster for the object traveling at that speed.
3. When the projectile encounters the atmosphere at 5,000mph both the shock and ram pressure heating will be tremendous. The only materials to be able to survive that are either ceramic, and or Carbon/Carbon structures. The carbon structures do not do well with impacts, and the ceramic's are very heavy.
This is nothing more than snake oil being sold to low resolution thinking individuals. Just these three issues alone make this implausible, and there are many more. Any time someone tells me that this is ecologically sound, alarm bell go foo saying "Scam Alert".
For number one, you might be able to fire two projectiles in close succession, located at opposing sides of the launching arm. Sure, you have to release them in sequence, so that will still put stress on the system, but you are doing it in VERY quick succession, and once the second projectile leaves the cannon, the majority of the stored energy leaves the system with it.
number two and three might be solvable in the same go by making a staggered air lock. as in, you make the release chimney longer and have the projectile pass through several chambers of increasing pressure on its way out.
I personally don't think the latter is feasible, becuase it requires you to be even more precise on your launch release to not damage your facility, but who knows.
End of the day, I think the larger problem is something else: WHat the hell are you going to launch with this? Satelite engineers already face hurdles desingning payloads that can withstand a rocket launch, so an alternative would very much be appreciated, but this will ALSO put large stress on your thing, only in a different way.
So this is not really an imrovement, even IF they get it to work. But if it isn't an improvement, then what is the point? Maybe they are just trying to attract the attention of the military, trying to interest them in a cannon with unlimited range?
All these questions are addressed in several other videos. They still need another motor (engine) to get an object in to orbit - so yeah - still some issue to be addressed.
@@mb-3fazeThat's like saying we still need to solve some equations before we figure out how magic works....
A thousand yard diameter centrifuge going at those velocities would expose the projectile to 25,000 G.
some issues indeed....
THIS is sounding very 4 wheels that had AI in each of them!! Try the "vision of Ezekiel" and give me a nod ))
100% agree with you!! Listening to that man talking, gave me OceanGate vibes!
Point that at a house and it's a weapon 😂
The launch vehicle will tumble. Plus if an equal weight is not released from the other side into the ground at the exact same moment, that whole spinning assembly will destroy itself from imbalance.
Fascinating but I wonder if upscaling will be maxed out at some point. I love the concept, but question its actual payload abilities.
Would have helped to not have spent 1 million on just the automatic entrance gate... a waste of funds for sure.
Of course it is not feasible. It is a fraud. Same exact thing as OceanGate.
20 years ago, school shootings were such a big deal that they got media coverage.
We are in that same early period with scam culture, where media still covers this garbage.
Eventually they won't cover these types of scams, the same way that they no longer cover school shootings. Perhaps in about 20 years.
It does not up scale well.
From a mass to drag perspective, the concept scales very well. Moreso if they could design a finer vehicle - which will be far easier for larger vehicles than for smaller vehicles.
Still useful for smaller loads.
Tbh.. looks like the massive wood chipper that I used to work near at a paper mill as a summer student back in the late '70's. Not quite as big but a beast of a machine.
I'm glad I'm not the only one who thought this looked like a chipper.
How truly wonderful to hear a modern engineer say "aeroplane" instead of the crude, inelegant, "airplane"!
This was discussed in 2013 glad to see it today
The shaft of the orbital accelerator could suffer certain degree of damage due to the unbalanced loading on the object holding arm. Depending on the weight of load (rocket), it may need to replace the bearing frequently. Electromagnetic railguns should be able to launch much heavier aircraft/rocket.
They put a counterweight on it that gets released at the same time into a sand pit
@@roberttalada5196it is the only possible way to prevent damage to that launcher. But i have never seen releasing of that counter weight after the projectile is launched
@@Xhydraulics It would have to be released at *_exactly_* the same time. Also it would have to be replaced after each use. Look at what happens to a bullet shot into water. 🙂
This has been debunked by Thunderf00t
@@pkrakras3561 Was waiting for someone to bring in Thunderf00t 🙂
will anything more advanced than a rock survive the g-forces?
No
Electronics are surprisingly durable in this regard. A slow increase in G-Forces is preferable in many ways to the hard shaking and rocking motion of a rocket.
On top of that, there might come a time where we want to send metals and other bulk cargo to space for construction, so this might become a niche application anyway.
@@Alexander_KaleAgreed, but that is valid only for linear acceleration. The forces here do not abate as the wheel slowly spins faster.
@@patrickvanrinsvelt4466 I probably phrased that wrong. What I meant was that some electronics CAN withstand very high forces, as long as the build up is gradual.
That said, no idea how large. I did the math earlier, and we are talking somewhere in the realm of tenthousand G here for a centrifuge with sufficient tangential velocity.
Nor do I have any idea what would happen to those electronics if the force in question suddenly disappeared, followed by a jolt caused by the carrying projectile leaving the chamber and slamming into the atmosphere at mach 33...
The projectile definitely won't be launched anywhere near orbital velocity. The centrifuge appears to function as an electric 'first stage', hence the smaller rocket stages inside the projectile.
They got this built for 150 million. That's cheap. I think we all have the same question: How this thing spins this fast and how you get it to perfectly release at the right point. The payload has to handle the rotation and G's of the launch..
This is more military than anything.
Wow! For reference, the minimum escape velocity for Earth at ground level for ballistic objects like their launch vehicle is ~11.2km/sec or over *25,000mph* or Mach 33.
Even the extremely fast "hypersonic" speed range starts _only_ at Mach 5.
But will need a some more speed to account for atmospheric drag. The pressure and heat from atmospheric drag will be enormous. The launch vehicle exiting the barrel at such speed could cause a large shockwave perhaps.
Really good concepts and challenges listed on Wikipedia:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Escape_velocity
Hope they can do it but using someone else's money and not any tax payer money.
Particle colliders are everywhere. Let loose in the upper atmosphere, sounds like ozone and radiation killing us all.
Nice to know I'm not the only one who realized 5000 mph was nowhere near escape velocity.
I think they are trying to get the aircraft as high as possible before they activate the rocket boosters so it can escape the earths atmosphere .
@@chishooter9483 Oh yeah, I saw that mentioned in the video. It seems like an innovative combination technique. But its kinda cheating because that would still require a lot of fuel and engine power.
Doing the calculations: 5000mph or 2.2km/sec initial velocity fired straight up will reach maximum about 20,000ft altitude which is only in the range of jetliner cruising altitude.
Let's double the initial velocity to 10,000mph which will result in 80,000ft (15 miles) altitude. That gets out of the troposphere and just make it to the lower stratosphere.
But still a ways to go to get to 60 miles altitude to leave the atmosphere to get to the first part of LEO (low earth orbit). There's many thousand of miles to get to higher orbits like MEO (12,700 miles) and GEO (22,223 miles). Though once out of the atmosphere, a big drag force is finally gone.
@@icedriver2207 They have a rocket booster inside the capsule that functions as the second stage to achieve orbit. They don't need escape velocity, just orbital velocity. They aren't looking to use this for interplanetary missions.
It's incredible! I hope everything will going right!
Spoiler: It won't
ACME Industries seal of approval
This is absolutely mindblowing! Always wondered why spinning launchers and long rail guns weren’t attempted to launch things into space. Amazing to see it being tried.
G Forces tend to be an issue. Not so much on the moon if needing to send material back
So what happens when all that weight is released and the wheel is unbalanced? Im sure theyve thought about it, but Ive seen large fans (think 5,000 Horse Power) rip themselves apart from small weight imbalances
Ever seen an MRI fall apart?
its been cool to follow the development of this. its a crazy concept. when i listen to the designers, i really believe in what they are saying, all the same i still have this feeling of skepticism
As you should! I think Thunderf00t did a debunk on this thing a year or so ago. Worth a watch.
Part of the risk of that core technology involves damage to our ozone layer. This would significantly cut down on the damage done each time a heavy lift vehicle heads to orbit from earth. Bravo!
You need to develop anti gravity to avoid the G force effects.
I think this was already demonstrated in Australia sometimes ago using a pair of gyroscope.
They can save even more fuel as they can tune the engine bell of the rocket motor for the altitude it ignites/ orbit, as opposed to having a design that has to be a good fit from sea level to orbit. Could also be a good weapons system/ launcher. Another thought would be to add a kinetic energy recovery system (KERS) via a flywheel and generator to recover some of the energy as electricity.
Wouldn't need a flywheel: the spin-up motor would be capable of regenerative braking and recovering the spin energy of the throw arm and axle assembly.
Most of the “spin energy” goes with the projectile. Like a giant exploding flywheel.
True
if people could survive such a launch I think this technology would have been developed sooner
The payload must be able to withstand huge side loading caused by the centripetal motion.
So is this how they are releasing alien tech without getting in trouble. Under a rouse!?
10.000g. Hahahahaha! Satellites will be chunky salsa.
Loving these young brilliant minds who think outside the linear possibilities... Fabulous!!!! 🎉🎉🎉🎉🎉
Yeah loved it ! now I think the old technic to launch will make a great combination with modern technology & will have a great boost to go to the space !
The projectile can still use fuel to boost the flight even further. To gain momentum.
Been following them and wish them nothing but the best … it’s cool to see new ways of getting things to space …
Nobody has ever been to “space”.
Scientifically, earth is flat and motionless. Its time for you to wake up.
Same. People have been hating on them since the beginning, while they've just been working judicially, getting closer and closer to their goal.
@@dentontxflatearthguy2903 lol.
@@dentontxflatearthguy2903 I see you're still living in the cave
This most pointedly is NOT a way to get into space.
It's a way to separate ignorant "investors" of their cash.
That's all. It can never work.
Love the design ! Reminds me a little of the movie "Contact" with Jodie Foster :)
It reminds me of first men on the moon by h.g. wells. Ridiculous!!
Very cool. I can’t wait to see what these guys do next
Maybe this idea need to be worked out and will have a lot of testing but is realy great engineering idea. This would help a lot.
Didn't Thunderf00t already debunk this as a fraud?
Yep.
Will anybody bother who get's their Science-y Stuff from CBS Saturday Morning?
No.
As a space fan, follow spaceX and the rest, I must say.
You all rock for being different. Can't wait to see the full build and testing. I'll follow all the way when it's the full sized one being tested. Investors better invest!
the moment the rocket comes off ill believe it
Found the paid shill.
No thank you.
sorry to blow the ending for you - it ain't going to work.
@@justwilly6778 not sure who's expecting this particular idea to work, but maybe something useful could come from it
Wow, it will be interesting to see where this tech is in 50 years! 😳😳😳😳😳
1963: "by 2020 we will have flying cars"
2023: "let's just yeet stuff out of a spinning cannon"
I have been a Spinlaunch fan for years, not just because Yeeting satellites amuses me. I'm glad to see the press picking up on some of the other young aerospace companies with less self-promoting but equally intelligent CEOs as they work to bring the tried and true but outdated commercial aerospace industry my Dad worked for into the 21st century.
(Too many people don't realize that commercial aerospace has been around as long as weather and telecommunications satellites and the US nuclear program - NASA just provided a more peaceful, civilian, and scientific purpose and R&D for ICBMs).
probably fun, but moral?
This spin thing has been debunked by Thunderf00t long time ago.
@@pkrakras3561 Thunderf00t is not a reliable source on anything. In this case he's correct and spinlaunch will never work, but that's a perfect example of the phrase "even a broken clock is right twice a day." genuinely more than half of the things he debunks are perfectly sound and viable; he is just an uninformed egotistical clout chaser.
When they are around for that long, they must have spinned a lot rockets and satellites into orbit.
So, how many till now?
If I was the owner of spin launch I would be bragging on how high I launched my projectiles to date !
This makes my head spin.
Yes. 360 in performance
So exciting, I wish them well‼️
I wish you well, when you test it out
@Native722 : When they start launching sh*t - heads into space , why then U can go for a spin !
Lots of questions around g forces. Satellites certainly can't take the gs this thing produces
Don't get too excited.
I'm surprised this money-pit project is getting a 2nd airing in 2023.
Ok, so a quick google shows that there is electronics that can withstand up to 30,000 G (it is used in artillery applications). That being said, it is probably very small, special purpose stuff - not useful satellites. Maybe it would be useful for launching 'raw materials' to space. For example fuel, water, oxygen or building blocks for space stations.
the centrifuge force is enormous so the projectile and what it contains is submitted to tremendous constraint
It’ll be ready in about 5 years and they’ve been working on it since 2014 so it’s taking them 14 years total to get it working 😊
Projects like these are mainly kept alive as long as possible just for the sake of continued funding.
How about building a SpinLaunch system at very high-elevation places (Hill Stations like the Himalayas) where the atmosphere is very thin?
so u wanna destroy the himalays now? bruh even the US have elevated & mountainous places bt why are they doing it in a sea level then?
That launching site is not at sea level. The lowest elevation in New Mexico is nearly 3000 ft.
That would help a tiny amount but how much is it gunna cost to build the road?
@@allanfifield8256 New Mexico doesn't have a coast? I don't know and I'm way too lazy to look. 🙂
Getting people and supplies up there would be cost prohibitive.
They should play Looney Tunes music during launch
Limitations seems to be huge tech, but all new tech are welcome as we get to learn
This tech maybe more realistic if used on other rocky planets which do not have any atmosphere
Man.....if Apple decided to make a big giant iPhone then it would fit right in there! 😂1:26
Whatever works! It’s the idea that matters, being positive and productive for humanity’s development 😊
If it don't work it can't be anything but a waste.
The idea is the thing that matters? Seriously? Not the actual success or failure of the technology? It's not like a kid giving a tattered hand drawn picture to mom on her birthday. This stuff has to work or it doesn't. My prediction is it won't, and I'm a highly seasoned and skilled and qualified electrical / mechanical engineer with a minor in physics and math.
As soon as the payload goes above a certain threshold the overhead to reach a critical torque will demand exponential growth in both the launch system's footprint and the input energy (fuel, electrical power, etc.) which renders the whole "no-jet fuel" concept less feasible in this case.
what about methane?
As a nanosatellite delivery system, it’s quite clever. If it can free up traditional rocket launches for smaller payloads, that reduces demand for rocket delivery, helping to drive the market to lower costs.
Brilliant
Dude better start showing some spectacular results and soon. It seems like everyday SpaceX has done something ingenious that's got the folks at NASA shaking their heads in amazement.
Not really. Nasa can do what space x is doing, problem with nasa is funding so they outsource. Engineering wise nasa can do it
@@GrimYak you're absolutely wrong in every single possible way.
NASA anually has more than twenty times the budget of SpaceX, yet they have only launched ONE rocket of their own design in the past decade
The engineers at NASA are largely the people at fault for the eye-watering cost of SLS, and the fact that it can barely shuffle out to the launch pad once every other year
Put simply, NASA genuinely cannot even dream of doing what SpaceX does.
Hate 2 see what happens when it miss the exit by millisecond 💥
Were hitting atoms together, relax
I want to know how they plan to dump the payload's angular momentum after release.
America is huge that we can just things like this
Hope Thunderfoot will make another video debunking this "genius" idea ^^
edit : 5:50 Yeah, let's compare with the Wright brothers. That doesn't sound delusional for a bit.
Love the little smile on the reporter's face when he's saying this seriously haha
Doesn't even matter if we use it once to send man into space, as long as it's able to send supplies, satellites, and other important cargo cheaply and more environmentally friendly as well as safer.. already the biggest win 🏆
Men in space from this thing?? More like buckets of blood and skeletons. The exact opposite of oceangate!!!
Depends what you mean by "safe". This thing is effectively a cannon with unlimited range, capable of hitting anything to its left or right. If something goes wrong, your payload will fly off like an artillery shell that can hit a target halfway across the planet with ease.
@@Alexander_Kale yeah, think you know damb well what I meant, and yeah ur car could go off a bridge on ur way home or a airplane could fall out of the sky and start a building on fire that brings the fire department 🚒 who squrts water everywhere allowing the power lines to shock a cop who then falls onto and startled a dog who bites ur ankle and you slowly die from rabbies 👏 guess that's the long way of saying nothing is safe by ur standards
@@damonhochhalter2803 I assumed that by "safe" you meant safe for the people who could be affected by a missfire. Since this will never carry actual astronauts, thanks to the G-Forces, that leaves people running the facility and people living near it. And "near" is a very relative term with this one.
As far as risks go, you don't hear so much about rockets exploding on the launchpad or in flight, but it still frequently happens. If you book an orbital flight, there is a very, very real chance that your stuff will never make it up to orbit, that chance being somewhere in the single digit percentage range.
That is not a small number.
Again, happens much more frequently than planes falling out of the sky, and even THAT happens more often than you seem to think.
Problem is of course, a catastrophic failure of a rocket doesn't normally total the launch facility. With this thing, it WOULD..
@@Alexander_Kale 😆 love when people try and talk smart to me 🤓
Hey i remember hearing about Carbon Fiber in the news at an industrial environment recently. It was on a submarine that went pop. Repeated High stresses caused micro fractures and lead to the vehicles collapse, killing multiple people. Pretty sure there is a loght of High stresses involved, how long until the arm breaks and throws the payload early destroying the entire launch system and payload.
Spinlaunch sounds like it could be a plastic kids toy sold for 3 easy payments of 19.95 + shipping and handling batteries not included some assembly required
"I was sitting in my mom's lap at 3 years old learning how to fly a plane"
talk about winning the parents lottery, a platinum spoon. an out-liar
A lot of cool scams going on in the space space
👍👍🤣🤣😎😎
Thumbs up for the commenters who are engineers. By engineer I mean Advanced Modern Apprenticeship in Engineering (HNC) + 9 years experience, BEng + 6 years, MEng + 5 years or CEng. Basically that is IMechE’s minimum level of acumen and competence for CEng. No cynasism here just curiosity as to the level that CEng truly is.
I hate seeing Spinlaunch associated with such things. Yes, centrifugal slings are potentially useful on the moon, asteroids, or in free space. But Spinlaunch isn't working on such applications, and most of what they are working on won't be applicable. You don't need the vacuum chamber, you aren't limited to such a short radius of rotation and high acceleration forces, you don't need a near-orbital rocket stage with a discardable aeroshell that can survive sea level hypersonic flight...
Spinlaunch isn't about efficient lunar payload launches, they're about getting investor funding by pushing a fallacy that orbital launch here on Earth is expensive due to propellant costs. By the time we're building lunar slings, they won't be around any more.
Yea, I love the idea of using this on the Moon but I’m not convinced it will ever be cost-effective on the Earth. The Moon has no atmosphere so the projectiles wouldn’t need to be aerodynamic and you could pack more in them. And, of course, the escape velocity is so much lower.
Oh really ? It's not the fuel requirements that make space travel expensive and hard ? Okay then, why are 90% of most rocket designs fuel tanks and 10% any payload then.
THANK YOU
finally I found one other person that gets it, fuel is literally the cheapest part of any rocket launch (unless it's some insane hypergolic first stage nightmare, but thankfully those are mostly extinct)
I'm an investor in this company, they're doing great things 💪💪
Be like the folks who got in on McDonald's early! You may become embarrassingly rich in the near future! 💖
@@ChopBassMan More like the first passengers on the Titanic methinks.
Say sike right now.
Now imagine something like this as large as a Soccer or NFL stadium or larger. A spin arm that large could throw something massive into space
This is great!🙌 💪😎
Wow! My fist thought, can it be used to send fuel to orbiting starships?
I think the centrifugal forces would break it down into its components, all I can see is sending capsules into orbit to build space stations. Even food would not make it, not even twinkies.
@@streamofconsciousness5826 Perhaps the raw materials for 3D printing robots on space stations. Nothing else could withstand the Gs.
They tested the projectiles with cell phones and go-pro pro cameras. They worked fine. I can't imagine rocket fuels 'breaking down', even with intense g-forces. The projectiles require rocket stages to reach orbit anyway.
Another Elizabeth Holmes in the making or Nikola.
If you are speaking of Tesla as a fraud, almost the whole worlds electrical grid has been built based on his original concepts.
This type of tech will be super useful IN SPACE.
The g forces would reduce anyone to a pile of pulp, but even unmanned vehicles, wouldn't those g forces damage and destroy very sensitive electronics?
This is literally how caveman thought of how to get to space 💀
Yeah....hard, hard pass on investing in this one. They might be able to design an elaborate skeet launcher, but that's about it. No satellite with modern tech would be functional after that level of G-force. Also, if we weren't able to put satellites into orbit with a giant cannon, then there ain't a chance in hell we are doing it with a sling. I'm sure this guy skipped a few physics lessons in his day. Thank God that he isn't building submarines...
Gun launch has only the length of the barrel to accelerate, with this you can work your way up gradually. This will have a niche market like launching consumables to LEO. You could launch water then have a space tug in LEO that collects the cannisters and delivers them to a processing station to split into oxygen and hydrogen for rocket fuel. This would also provide oxygen for breathing and water for drinking. This could be another way of supplying the ISS
@@dionysus2006 Water is a really good idea. That could work, if one could figure how to counter all that chaos to retrieve that package. Perhaps A.I. in the future could find a way to circumvent that incredible error ratio. I feel other forms of tech will smother this company's true potential far before it buds and blooms. (I hope they try a spin launch from a giant weather balloon. That would be interesting.)
@@landonl958 Potentially they could launch many times a day since they don't have all the complexity of dealing with cryogenic propellants. So, even if you can only launch a small amount at a time over the course of a week you could put a lot up. Good point about the complexity of collecting the payload. The StarLink satellites have an ion drive so they can change their orbits very precisely to do station keeping with the other satellites. Maybe a version of this drive could be used to automatically collect the payloads.
@@criticalevent But if you can do that 20 times a day every day of the week, that's a lot of water. To be successful they have to break the industry standard on launch cadence. What they have going for them is no cryogenic propellent to contend with and they don't have to worry about weather. If they can't launch 10 times a day they don't have a business.
@@dionysus2006 No, it really isn't a lot of water at all. Falcon 9 could launch more in a single reusable flight than this thing could do in an entire month, assuming the greatest possible cadence of 2 launches per day.
AND NO, they're NEVER going to be launching more than that. Do you know how slowly their centrifuge spins up? By their own admission it will take more than 10 hours per launch between vacuum pump-down and tether spin up. They can't possibly put more than 400KG into orbit per day; multiplied by 31 that gets you 12 and a half tons to orbit per month. A single Falcon 9 with booster reuse can do 15 tons to LEO; likely for less than 30% of the cost of this glorified ferris wheel. Really, the entire concept is worthy of a circus.
🤣
Okay. Launch a person with that. I think the CEO should volunteer.
😉
Electromagnetic Railgun i think is the best
The Gs from the centripetal force must be immense. No way will it work with manned spacecraft or even projectiles with sensitive materials.
At a top speed of 4,700 mph with a 33 meter-diameter arm, it would be spinning at around 1200 rpm, resulting in a g-force of about 26,000. Seeing as how humans cannot survive greater than 6-9 g's, this is only for non-human payloads as they say at the end.
I also wonder what the total energy cost is per launch. I imagine it would sill be expensive to pull an ultra high vacuum for a chamber that size and to power a centrifuge motor to accelerate many tons up to supersonic speeds.