Spinlaunch... Can it succeed?

[Nusa]

Something tells me that the NASA scientists involved know a bit more about physics than you, me or Thunderfoot do. I don't think any of us has even a PhD in the subject, never mind practical experience putting things into orbit.

[AVGresponding]

Yes, because NASA never ever gets anything wrong, and never ever has to do stupid things to placate the moronic politicians that hold the purse strings.

[SiliconWizard]

As reality beats any kind of speculation or politics, we'll see. No need to resort to arguments of authority. They are usually the sign of weak arguments.

So, see you here when the NASA and SpinLaunch have done anything conclusive, or when SpinLaunch just goes out of business.

[DougSpindler]

Thunderf00t did a very good job of explaining why Spinlaunch is just another Theranos, Nikola Trucks or name your other scam.

[BrianHG]

Something tells me that the NASA scientists involved know a bit more about physics than you, me or Thunderfoot do. I don't think any of us has even a PhD in the subject, never mind practical experience putting things into orbit.

Read the carefully all fine text in the supplied GBR article.
Nasa does not have a clue if it can actually do any work or that any of their personal time or money should be invested in it.
They hope it may be possible to use for sending cargo to space.
They don't know it it can even be made to function at all or even be profitable.
Now, if any PHD in Nasa actually did analyze the device and see it function, wouldn't the article read more like:  We at Nasa know this is the future and we will invest our government dollars into making the device and have plans to use it for all our cargo needs which can tolerate the 10000g metric.  We reserved prime real estate here in Cape Canaveral for the location of our new Spinlaunch en-devour and plan to ship cargo to orbit in under a decade.
You are looking at a meaningless press release where basically Nasa said they would keep an eye out to see if anything functional ever develops.  If it ever does, they might find a use for it.  The only 'lucky' possibly manipulative winner move here is Spinlaunch as they got some press with Nasa's name on it.  A great credential move.

[PlainName]

And if that’s not enough proof,, here’s more.

I didn't watch because the still images reek of thunderf00t, and I don't have enough spare time to wade through his biased clickbait. If you have a serious source of detail (pro or con), perhaps you could post the link to that (and/or precis it).

[DougSpindler]

And if that’s not enough proof,, here’s more.

I didn't watch because the still images reek of thunderf00t, and I don't have enough spare time to wade through his biased clickbait. If you have a serious source of detail (pro or con), perhaps you could post the link to that (and/or precis it).

He clearly explains the laws of physics which would have to be broken for this Spinlaunch to work.  You can choose to remain ignorant by not watching it's up to you.  I take it you didn't take a basic university physics class; if you had, it would be obvious what laws of physics are being broken and why this will never work.

[Nusa]

Something tells me that the NASA scientists involved know a bit more about physics than you, me or Thunderfoot do. I don't think any of us has even a PhD in the subject, never mind practical experience putting things into orbit.

Read the carefully all fine text in the supplied GBR article.
Nasa does not have a clue if it can actually do any work or that any of their personal time or money should be invested in it.
They hope it may be possible to use for sending cargo to space.
They don't know it it can even be made to function at all or even be profitable.
Now, if any PHD in Nasa actually did analyze the device and see it function, wouldn't the article read more like:  We at Nasa know this is the future and we will invest our government dollars into making the device and have plans to use it for all our cargo needs which can tolerate the 10000g metric.  We reserved prime real estate here in Cape Canaveral for the location of our new Spinlaunch en-devour and plan to ship cargo to orbit in under a decade.
You are looking at a meaningless press release where basically Nasa said they would keep an eye out to see if anything functional ever develops.  If it ever does, they might find a use for it.  The only 'lucky' possibly manipulative winner move here is Spinlaunch as they got some press with Nasa's name on it.  A great credential move.

None of those change what I said one iota. All I said the relevant individuals at NASA is more competent than we are.

As for articles, let me know when you find a peer-reviewed article on the subject written by NASA. Until then, all you've got are journalist reporting. Youtube is one of the worst sources for science, especially for those who are looking for binary results. Keep an open mind...this may not work for purpose A, but for purpose B it's just fine. And don't forget C-Z.

[PlainName]

He clearly explains...

Yes, he is world-class at creating strawmen and then knocking them down with actual physics. As I say, if you have an alternative source, one that doesn't rant solely to gain clicks, that would be great. But imagine me telling you that you have to sit through an hour of aetherists blatherings to find out how things work... a bit different when the shoe is on the other foot, right?

So, if it's that simple you can spit it out yourself. If it's a bit more tricky, a reputable source would be your friend.

And, in case you hadn't noticed in your haste to belittle me, I wasn't commenting on whether it would work or not but discussing one aspect of it if they got it to fire as desired.

[PlainName]

You can choose to remain ignorant by not watching it's up to you.

You're a pleasant piece of work, BTW. Paraphrased: "I'm too lazy to even point to the position in the video, never mind type out the relevant info, but if you don't waste a half hour looking for something I won't tell you in some rant video then you're dumb." Or, "I value my time, yours doesn't matter."

Like I said, if it's important you'll find some text which can be quickly read and re-read, not some time-sink video diatribe.

[DougSpindler]

He clearly explains...

Yes, he is world-class at creating strawmen and then knocking them down with actual physics. As I say, if you have an alternative source, one that doesn't rant solely to gain clicks, that would be great. But imagine me telling you that you have to sit through an hour of aetherists blatherings to find out how things work... a bit different when the shoe is on the other foot, right?

So, if it's that simple you can spit it out yourself. If it's a bit more tricky, a reputable source would be your friend.

And, in case you hadn't noticed in your haste to belittle me, I wasn't commenting on whether it would work or not but discussing one aspect of it if they got it to fire as desired.

Please retract my belittlement, and accept an apology.  I thought you were one of those people who thought the Laws of Physics can be broken.  I do agree with you about Thunderf00t rambling on and with the stupid video clips.  I wish I could find someone who is a good as he explaining why good sounding ideas like Spinlaunch will never work, but I haven't.  For now he's what I have.

[DougSpindler]

You can choose to remain ignorant by not watching it's up to you.

You're a pleasant piece of work, BTW. Paraphrased: "I'm too lazy to even point to the position in the video, never mind type out the relevant info, but if you don't waste a half hour looking for something I won't tell you in some rant video then you're dumb." Or, "I value my time, yours doesn't matter."

Like I said, if it's important you'll find some text which can be quickly read and re-read, not some time-sink video diatribe.

No one is forcing you to watch a videos which explain why the laws of physics are being broken with Spinlaunch.  By not watching you remain ignorant on what laws of physics are being broken.  There are many Laws of Physics which are being broken which is why I cannot point you to just one spot in the video. 

[AVGresponding]

As reality beats any kind of speculation or politics, we'll see. No need to resort to arguments of authority. They are usually the sign of weak arguments.

So, see you here when the NASA and SpinLaunch have done anything conclusive, or when SpinLaunch just goes out of business.

My argument wasn't weak; it wasn't even an argument, I was merely pointing out that judging something as feasible or realistic before the testing has even happened is somewhat premature, and that sometimes the people in charge of the purse strings aren't necessarily the best able to judge the likely viability of something.

I predict the NASA tests will show the technology is impractical. Thunderfoot's numbers seem by and large reasonable, though like some others I also find his style rather grating at times.

[DougSpindler]

As reality beats any kind of speculation or politics, we'll see. No need to resort to arguments of authority. They are usually the sign of weak arguments.

So, see you here when the NASA and SpinLaunch have done anything conclusive, or when SpinLaunch just goes out of business.

My argument wasn't weak; it wasn't even an argument, I was merely pointing out that judging something as feasible or realistic before the testing has even happened is somewhat premature, and that sometimes the people in charge of the purse strings aren't necessarily the best able to judge the likely viability of something.

I predict the NASA tests will show the technology is impractical. Thunderfoot's numbers seem by and large reasonable, though like some others I also find his style rather grating at times.

Reminiscent of Elizabeth Holmes and Trevor Milton.

Unfortunately Thunderf00t is what we have.

[PlainName]

Please retract my belittlement, and accept an apology.

Consider it done 

[AVGresponding]

Unfortunately Thunderf00t is what we have.

There's also Common Sense Skeptic https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCgKWj1pn3_7hRSFIypunYog/featured

[wraper]

Unfortunately Thunderf00t is what we have.

There's also Common Sense Skeptic https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCgKWj1pn3_7hRSFIypunYog/featured

More like Musk hype train parasite with a little to no none of sense. Thunderf00t on other hand even though loses a lot of sense when it comes to Elon, at least is a viable scientist who more often than not is sensible. IMHO his main fault is OCD which comes out every time when there is anything even barely related to Musk.

[DougSpindler]

Unfortunately Thunderf00t is what we have.

There's also Common Sense Skeptic https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCgKWj1pn3_7hRSFIypunYog/featured

Dude the first video I picked at random refers to Thunderf00t videos.
You failed in providing a alternative to Thunderf00t and it doesn’t appear the folks on this channel are scientists.  The majority of their videos appear to be just Musk bashing.
Where’s the science?

If you are going to call me out for referencing Thunderf00t try offering something better instead of continually bashing me.

[AVGresponding]

Unfortunately Thunderf00t is what we have.

There's also Common Sense Skeptic https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCgKWj1pn3_7hRSFIypunYog/featured

Dude the first video I picked at random refers to Thunderf00t videos.
You failed in providing a alternative to Thunderf00t and it doesn’t appear the folks on this channel are scientists.  The majority of their videos appear to be just Musk bashing.
Where’s the science?

If you are going to call me out for referencing Thunderf00t try offering something better instead of continually bashing me.

Excuse me? I have neither "called you out" for referencing Thunderfoot, nor "bashed" you at any point.

The Common Sense Skeptic is not a scientist (afaik), he just runs the numbers on the economic side, from the few vids of his I've watched.

As ever with debunking style content, you have to provide your own critical thinking to analyse its level of accuracy regarding the numbers they use, and the logic behind their arguments.



EDIT: I don't consider Common Sense Skeptic as an alternative to Thunderfoot, but as an additional source of analysis of the numbers.

[EEVblog]

Excuse me? I have neither "called you out" for referencing Thunderfoot, nor "bashed" you at any point.
The Common Sense Skeptic is not a scientist (afaik), he just runs the numbers on the economic side, from the few vids of his I've watched.
As ever with debunking style content, you have to provide your own critical thinking to analyse its level of accuracy regarding the numbers they use, and the logic behind their arguments.
EDIT: I don't consider Common Sense Skeptic as an alternative to Thunderfoot, but as an additional source of analysis of the numbers.

Why does someone have to be a scientist (or an engineer for that matter). All you need to do is have some ability to understand things and then go to the effort to research stuff and crunch the numbers and draw some conclusions from it.
Thunderf00t is a very experienced research scientist of quite some note, but even he gets numbers wrong some times, as do I and every "debunker".
The value of ones debunking work is not and should not be their qualifications, it should be the concensus of the community on analysing their efforts and conclusions and confirming and/or spotting any mistakes.

[EEVblog]

Unfortunately Thunderf00t is what we have.

You do possess a microphone the ability to edit a video, right?
Why not try some debunking for yourself? I'm serious. Why lament that "Thunderf00t is all we have" when you can contribute yourself.
Or you don't even need to do a video. There are people who do debunking via their website. e.g.
https://liesandstartuppr.blogspot.com/
Heck, you can even do it right here on ths forum, you just have to put the effort in.

[AVGresponding]

Unfortunately Thunderf00t is what we have.

You do possess a microphone the ability to edit a video, right?
Why not try some debunking for yourself? I'm serious. Why lament that "Thunderf00t is all we have" when you can contribute yourself.
Or you don't even need to do a video. There are people who do debunking via their website. e.g.
https://liesandstartuppr.blogspot.com/
Heck, you can even do it right here on ths forum, you just have to put the effort in.

There's also "Adam Something", but I mostly watch Thunderfoot and EEVBlog for debunking vids (No I'm not busting your balls about content Dave     , as far as I'm concerned creators should always make the content that interests them; that is what brought me to their channel in the first place!).

[DougSpindler]

The problem giving people who know nothing about the subject and have little or no education they can create a company like Nikola or Theranos or claim the earth is flat.  We were taught the earth was not flat, but can you prove what we are being told is true?  Giving anyone and everyone a microphone and a video channel has is allowing people to promote junk science and propagate false information.

If you heard the Sun causes Earthquakes would say that’s impossible and bunch of crap?  I did….  Turnips out I was wron and there is evidence for showing a relationship between the Sun and Earthquakes.

[EEVblog]

The problem giving people who know nothing about the subject and have little or no education they can create a company like Nikola or Theranos or claim the earth is flat.  We were taught the earth was not flat, but can you prove what we are being told is true?  Giving anyone and everyone a microphone and a video channel has is allowing people to promote junk science and propagate false information.

That's been going on since time immortal, the modern internet just makes it more efficient and potent.
In any case, you aren't going to do anything about it? Just whinge on a forum?
Be the change you want to see.

If you heard the Sun causes Earthquakes would say that’s impossible and bunch of crap?

Nope, almost all of the energy this planet gets comes from the sun. IIRC only a small percentage is from internal thermal energy? Earthquakes need built up energy to happen. And the sun puts different amounts of energy into different parts of the planet = possible energy differential. Without knowing anything else about this field I'd immediately put it into the plausible category and investigate more.

[EEVblog]

There's also "Adam Something"

FYI, I've done a debunking video of one of Adam Something's claims.
Not saying his debunks aren't good, but in this case I think he's wrong.