Spinlaunch... Can it succeed?

[DougSpindler]

...
Spinlaunch just seems way over complicated compared to something like the German V3 or Schwerer Gustav.  Amazing what the Germans were able to do build while at war and being bombed.  Yet when the Germans were winning the war a group of 400 poorly trained 18 - 26 year old women who held off the entire advancing German army leading to their defeat.
...

This is not electronics, but I hate to have someone look at this forum and thinks we know nothing outside soldering and DMMs.

A German army "kempf group" was merely an informal battle group to achieve a task.  The small action against the forward element of the 6th army was certainly successful, but it is a great exaggeration to consider it THE REASON for the failure of the 6th Army or as reason for the defeat of Germany's eastern effort.

Mark Felton is a good historian and I rather like his video as well, but I think he too would consider taking that battle as the main cause of the Stalingrad outcome a great exaggeration.

Stalingrad was held by Soviet Army groups against an already drawn down German 6th Army that reached Stalingrad.  Had Germany been able to adequately resupply the 6th Army prior to the start of Stalingrad or during the Stalingrad battles, the outcome would likely have been different.  Even then, it took Operation Uranus (1.14 million Soviet soldiers) that finally encircled the 400,000 axis German troops, and both the north and south pincer movements were attacking mostly non-German axis troops.

Stalingrad itself did not lead to the defeat of Germany in the East.  It was logistics for the Germans, and the need for the troops elsewhere that stopped the Germans.  Even after Stalingrad, they were not yet defeated.  During the Battle of Kursk (Operation Citadel), they managed successfully inching toward the goal until they had to pull resources out from the battle to reinforce Italy when the Allies landed there.

Don't kid yourself, it took a lot more than a few hundred woman to stop the Germans in the East.  It took millions and millions of Soviet troop to accomplish that task.

I thought Dr. Felton said the 400 poorly trained women held the German army at bay just long enough for the Soviet troops to re-organize and clobber the Germans.  Had it not been for the women the Germans would have captured Stalingrad resulting in a much different outcome.

[Rick Law]

...
I thought Dr. Felton said the 400 poorly trained women held the German army at bay just long enough for the Soviet troops to re-organize and clobber the Germans.  Had it not been for the women the Germans would have captured Stalingrad resulting in a much different outcome.

For a long see-saw urban battle lasting months, and with changes at the top (both Army and Army Group level on the Russian side) within those months, it is hard to imagine that the initial organization had much impact on the final outcome in Stalingrad.  Two Russian armies managed to escape encirclement in earlier Case Blue battles and ended up in (or near) Stalingrad prior to German 6th Army got to Stalingrad.  Just the mass of Russian troops in town or near by would make it difficult for the Germans.  Clean drive to the river banks was never a possibility.

Don't get me wrong.  I like Mark Felton and learned a lot from his videos.  It doesn't mean I have to agree with all his conclusions.  I think he puts too much weight on that small battle.  In my view, a few more/less trainload of supplies for the 6th Army earlier on would have made a much bigger difference.   Besides, new facts often come out as documents become available/declassified so our take of history is changed along with it.

[PlainName]

I think he puts too much weight on that small battle.

The potential for that clickbait title was no doubt irresistible.

[DougSpindler]

We can learn from history.  I think what Dr. Felton was saying is that the young poorly trained women with the wrong type of guns and ammonization held off the German army just long enough for the Soviets to re-org and go on the offensive against the Germans.  Mark implies this was the turning point in the war against the Germans.  What Mark is not saying, and to remain on topic with this post, these women prevented the Germans from developing Spinlaunch.  They were busy with V2, V3 and the Schwerer Gustav.  I'm wondering why we aren't or if we can use that technology instead of Spinlaunch?
 

[PlainName]

What Mark is not saying, and to remain on topic with this post, these women prevented the Germans from developing Spinlaunch.

 


Wait... are you serious?

[DougSpindler]

What Mark is not saying, and to remain on topic with this post, these women prevented the Germans from developing Spinlaunch.

 


Wait... are you serious?

Can you show us any Nazi era Spinlaunch sites?  I’m basing my claim on good honest facts based loosely on the truth.  And we had better keep quite about Tesla so “THEY” don’t eliminate us.  Tesla figured out this electric care thing close nearly 100 years ago with his 1931 Pierce-Arrow car which was powered by the resonating frequency of the universe.  I’m sure Tesla knew of a way to harness that resonating energy to make a Spinlaunch. Ask any conspiracy theorist and they willl tell you it’s in his secret papers the government confiscated have hidden away.   

[PlainName]

Can you show us any Nazi era Spinlaunch sites?

Nope.

And neither can I show any Nazi era heart transplant hospitals, or chip fabs, or satellite groundstations, etc, etc.

[DougSpindler]

Can you show us any Nazi era Spinlaunch sites?

Nope.

And neither can I show any Nazi era heart transplant hospitals, or chip fabs, or satellite groundstations, etc, etc.

You might be able to.  The heart surgeon, Michael DeBakey, received training and performed operations for the Nazis.  While they didn't have satellite ground stations, they were getting close with ground controlled guidance of drone aircraft and bombs.  Scientists today build on the knowledge and discoveries made by others.  As terrible as that war was, we are benefiting in so many ways.

Time and money will tell if Spinlauch will be a Tesla or a Nikola?    (As in Nikola Trucks.)  Right now I think the laws of physics are against them.

[Nusa]

The physics are fine, regardless of how much fun you have saying otherwise. It's the actual costs and laws of economics that are in question.

The structural materials research and brainstorming they have to do to make it work will have value regardless of how successful the launch program is.

[CatalinaWOW]

I see nothing that says that Spin Launch can't get something into orbit.  But they are so far from the finish line that it seems hard to imagine a financial success.  They are solving one problem (carrying the energy source along with you) at the expense of two other major ones - going at your highest velocity through the thickest part of the atmosphere and the tremendous g-loads involved.

Other factors which will impact their success which I haven't seen mentioned are the huge sonic boom associated with each launch (neighbors, environmentalists and others won't like this) and the relatively limited range of orbital inclinations that each Spin Launch facility will be able to achieve.

Again, these problems are solvable, but I personally thing Space Elevators are a more practical solution to the problem.  And recognize that Space Elevators are quite a long ways in our technical future, or perhaps never.  The comparison only serves to aid recognition of how difficult Spin Launch actually is. 

[Rick Law]

The physics are fine, regardless of how much fun you have saying otherwise. It's the actual costs and laws of economics that are in question.

The structural materials research and brainstorming they have to do to make it work will have value regardless of how successful the launch program is.

Well yes, the laws of physics is fine but it is what dictated the huge centrifugal g force required.  That huge g force makes the economics in question.  Besides the cost, the time to develop and implement a way to strengthen the payload to withstand 11,000g (of the initial proposed exit velocity) is also a huge problem.  That payload strengthen is necessary for every payload.

There is actually a way around that, but may not be practical either - a detail analysis is necessary to determine if it is workable.

Weather balloon altitude record is 173,000 feet.  That is more than half way to low earth orbit which is loosely defined as 60 miles to 100 miles.

One can imagine lighter-than-air floating launch platforms.  So the Spinner merely shoot the payload vehicle few tens of thousand feet up to the next platform going up one step at a time.  This could bring the payload vehicle's exit velocity down to a practical centrifugal G.  With lower exit velocity, the spinner will not need to be as robust and that is another huge plus.  The upper level platforms will be above the clouds and rain, solar power for the upper floating launch platforms are uninterrupted during day time so they could be lighter and less complex.

The highest launching platform will likely to be below 173,000 feet.  It could be where they mount the payload vehicle with rockets to complete the trip to low earth orbit.  While not launching customer payload, the spinner will be launching supplies such as rockets for the final stage up to the final stage platform.

With this method, the first floating platform would be mere few 10's of thousand feet up so the mountain-top launch of 10 or 20 thousand feet saving for stage one may now be a meaningful difference.

EDIT: just a typo correction.

[PlainName]

Not sure a floating platform is less tricky. Sure, weather balloons go up real high, but look at the size required - and that's with a minimal payload.

Also, I think it would be really risky to shoot a projectile at a (very large) balloon, hoping you can stop it before it actually gets there. Which is basically what you would need to do. It would make more sense to use a normal aircraft to deliver the goods to a floating platform, and that isn't without its own issues either.

[SiliconWizard]

Seriously, call me when you can design a satellite able to withstand 11,000g. Please!

Oh and the temperature that it would reach while traveling through the atmosphere must be pretty interesting as well.

[PlainName]

They addressed the temperature in the video. Solid copper pointy bit, etc.

[coppice]

EV's actually get poor efficiency on long haul driving at speed, I encountered this last weekend and tweeted about it. My EV battery efficiency dropped by at least 25% due the long haul driving speed compared to city driving.

I've seen two videos of different people driving a Tesla foot to the floor around a US oval style race track getting just 10s of miles from a full charge. I have no way to know how genuine they may be, but considering the enormous drop off in range you get as speed goes up, they probably are genuine.

[Rick Law]

Also, I think it would be really risky to shoot a projectile at a (very large) balloon... ... ...

Seriously, call me when you can design a satellite able to withstand 11,000g. Please!

Heck, just making a floating platform large enough for a smaller spinlauncher at 10,000 feet would be rather difficult, let alone shooting the payload vehicle from it to another platform at higher level.

But, with this floating platform idea, you don't need to deal with 11,000g that Laws of Physics stubbornly insisted.

The whole idea is rather tongue in cheek -- attempting to show that while this floating platform idea is difficult, it does not require breaking the Laws of Physics.  It is therefore theoretically more feasible than spinlaunch it (plus booster rocket) in one large step while ignoring the huge centrifugal acceleration g force as if you can make that g force disappear.   This huge centrifugal acceleration g force cannot be resolved except by breaking the Laws of Physics as we know it today.

[Nusa]

You keep saying its a physics problem. Which law of physics does it break? Be specific, show us the math where a 1 G equation (gravity) fails to scale to 10000 G.

Are you suggesting that Newton's laws of motion are wrong? Law of Inertia? Force = mass times acceleration? Action and equal and opposite reaction?
Or perhaps Einsteins mass-energy relationship? E=mc^2?
Or maybe you're just using physics as a whipping horse, because you don't really understand physics?

[Marco]

I think spin/gun launch is mostly for cubesats and bulk material. That said, how about suspending the satellite in ice or parrafin? Even complex mechanical structures might survive that way.

[DougSpindler]

You keep saying its a physics problem. Which law of physics does it break? Be specific, show us the math where a 1 G equation (gravity) fails to scale to 10000 G.

Are you suggesting that Newton's laws of motion are wrong? Law of Inertia? Force = mass times acceleration? Action and equal and opposite reaction?
Or perhaps Einsteins mass-energy relationship? E=mc^2?
Or maybe you're just using physics as a whipping horse, because you don't really understand physics?

@nusa  If you want to get technical, E=mc^2 is only for bodies are rest and does not apply to objects in motion.

"E = mc2 really applies only to isolated bodies at rest. In general, when you have moving bodies, or interacting bodies, energy and mass aren't proportional. E = mc2 simply doesn't apply. …For moving bodies, the correct mass-energy equation is E=\frac {mc^2} {\sqrt{1-\frac{v^2} {c^2}}}"  But is good enough for Spinlaunch

[Rick Law]

You keep saying its a physics problem. Which law of physics does it break? Be specific, show us the math where a 1 G equation (gravity) fails to scale to 10000 G.

Are you suggesting that Newton's laws of motion are wrong? Law of Inertia? Force = mass times acceleration? Action and equal and opposite reaction?
Or perhaps Einsteins mass-energy relationship? E=mc^2?
Or maybe you're just using physics as a whipping horse, because you don't really understand physics?

It is the centrifugal G that is the problem.  The 1g gravity has nothing to do with it.  It is typical that these kinds of force is expressed in g so one can visualize the force in terms of "how many times it's own weight."

Evaluating using the launch's exit velocity, the centrifugal force is about 11,000g.   11,000g was evaluated using the initial (when this thread started) proposed launch velocity with a 100 meter diameter spinner.   Launch velocity might have been increased since this tread started, this would mean even higher G.

Imagine you are standing on a merry-go-round that is turning, you will feel a force that tried to throw you off radially outward.  That is the centrifugal G force.  Gravity is still the same.  If that merry-go-round is going so fast that it is generating 11,000g, it will tear itself apart.  Assuming it is strong enough to hold itself together with you on it and your weight is 100 lb: Gravity is still 100 lb for you downward due to gravity, but the 11,000g centrifugal force means there will be a force of 1,100,000 lb pulling you off that merry-go-round radially outward away from the center of rotation.  That huge (1.1 million lb) radially outward "weight" will crush a human body into jelly.

Unless you can break the Laws of Physics, you can't change that.  A centrifugal force will be there whenever something spins.

For the object orbiting around a center, V is the linear velocity while orbiting, and it equals the velocity at release:
Centripetal /centrifugal acceleration is a = V²/R, here R is the distance to the center of rotation.
To express that in number of G's, you divide it by normal gravity's acceleration which is 9.8m/s².  (Meters per Second square)

At 11,000g, even the smallest of parts can self destruct when every thing is being pulled radially outward by 11000x it's own weight.  This is the force that they cannot get around without breaking the laws of physics.  To harden a payload to withstand that force will cost a bundle - this is what kills the economics of this launch method.

In an earlier reply on this thread, I did the math.  If the clamp that holds the launch vehicle down (radially) had only a contact area of 6 square inch and the payload launch vehicle is 200kg, the radially outward pressure on it will be high enough to make diamond.  So I had an earlier reply that shown the math, and joking that if I got that spinner, I will just spin a bucket of graphite with a 200kg cylinder of steel (cross section area of 6 square inch) sitting radially on it.  I would make diamond rather than sell space launches.

[PlainName]

I would make diamond rather than sell space launches.

Maybe that's what they'll end up doing!

I think we've been through the "this can't possibly work" thing quite extensively, but nevertheless they seem pretty confident and are not just talking the talk but a long way into walking the walk. At this point, wouldn't it be more sensible to just sit back and see what happens - they might surprise us! Equally, they might not achieve much, but they are right now doing a lot more than arguing on a web forum, so let's see how that goes.

[DougSpindler]

@Rick Law excellent explanation.  At those speed and G's the components of the Spinlauch projectile would be torn apart.  Think if being pulled into a blackhole.  The skin of the projectile would be damaged.  The skin on the inside will develop wrinkles while the outside will be stretched.

[DougSpindler]

I would make diamond rather than sell space launches.

Maybe that's what they'll end up doing!

I think we've been through the "this can't possibly work" thing quite extensively, but nevertheless they seem pretty confident and are not just talking the talk but a long way into walking the walk. At this point, wouldn't it be more sensible to just sit back and see what happens - they might surprise us! Equally, they might not achieve much, but they are right now doing a lot more than arguing on a web forum, so let's see how that goes.

This is exactly what programmers at Apple, Google, Facebooks and many other companies are doing.  After seeing what happened at Theranos they realized it's better to say "it can be done" and get that big fat paycheck for as long as people believe it can be done and there is money.  This is exactly what Nikola Tesla did towards the end of his life.  He did very little research, but sure knew how to party, have fun with the women and eat well.

[Nusa]

You keep saying its a physics problem. Which law of physics does it break? Be specific, show us the math where a 1 G equation (gravity) fails to scale to 10000 G.

Are you suggesting that Newton's laws of motion are wrong? Law of Inertia? Force = mass times acceleration? Action and equal and opposite reaction?
Or perhaps Einsteins mass-energy relationship? E=mc^2?
Or maybe you're just using physics as a whipping horse, because you don't really understand physics?

It is the centrifugal G that is the problem.  The 1g gravity has nothing to do with it.  It is typical that these kinds of force is expressed in g so one can visualize the force in terms of "how many times it's own weight."

Evaluating using the launch's exit velocity, the centrifugal force is about 11,000g.   11,000g was evaluated using the initial (when this thread started) proposed launch velocity with a 100 meter diameter spinner.   Launch velocity might have been increased since this tread started, this would mean even higher G.

Imagine you are standing on a merry-go-round that is turning, you will feel a force that tried to throw you off radially outward.  That is the centrifugal G force.  Gravity is still the same.  If that merry-go-round is going so fast that it is generating 11,000g, it will tear itself apart.  Assuming it is strong enough to hold itself together with you on it and your weight is 100 lb: Gravity is still 100 lb for you downward due to gravity, but the 11,000g centrifugal force means there will be a force of 1,100,000 lb pulling you off that merry-go-round radially outward away from the center of rotation.  That huge (1.1 million lb) radially outward "weight" will crush a human body into jelly.

Unless you can break the Laws of Physics, you can't change that.  A centrifugal force will be there whenever something spins.

For the object orbiting around a center, V is the linear velocity while orbiting, and it equals the velocity at release:
Centripetal /centrifugal acceleration is a = V²/R, here R is the distance to the center of rotation.
To express that in number of G's, you divide it by normal gravity's acceleration which is 9.8m/s².  (Meters per Second square)

At 11,000g, even the smallest of parts can self destruct when every thing is being pulled radially outward by 11000x it's own weight.  This is the force that they cannot get around without breaking the laws of physics.  To harden a payload to withstand that force will cost a bundle - this is what kills the economics of this launch method.

In an earlier reply on this thread, I did the math.  If the clamp that holds the launch vehicle down (radially) had only a contact area of 6 square inch and the payload launch vehicle is 200kg, the radially outward pressure on it will be high enough to make diamond.  So I had an earlier reply that shown the math, and joking that if I got that spinner, I will just spin a bucket of graphite with a 200kg cylinder of steel (cross section area of 6 square inch) sitting radially on it.  I would make diamond rather than sell space launches.

I know the math of centrifugal force. I think almost everyone has the concept down, at least at the merry-go-round level.
Nobody has even suggested this is suitable for humans. So irrelevant.
Nor has anyone speaking seriously stated the clamp mechanism, whatever it is, be unrealistically limited to 6 square inches. Besides, we can already make diamonds without a centrifuge.
As for payloads, who said they were trying to get around physics? Yes there will be that much force. Physics isn't broken. The math works. You still haven't stated a single physics "law" that is broken.

Sure, there are challenges in materials science, but they appear to be solving those. Satellite designs are already highly engineered and miniaturized, and designing them to take tremendous forces in one specific direction (WAY easier than ANY direction) isn't nearly as hard as you say it is. An actual launch isn't required to test the payloads ability to survive G-forces, so engineers will have excellent feedback prior to throwing hardware into space where it's out of reach.

[CatalinaWOW]

You keep saying its a physics problem. Which law of physics does it break? Be specific, show us the math where a 1 G equation (gravity) fails to scale to 10000 G.

Are you suggesting that Newton's laws of motion are wrong? Law of Inertia? Force = mass times acceleration? Action and equal and opposite reaction?
Or perhaps Einsteins mass-energy relationship? E=mc^2?
Or maybe you're just using physics as a whipping horse, because you don't really understand physics?

It is the centrifugal G that is the problem.  The 1g gravity has nothing to do with it.  It is typical that these kinds of force is expressed in g so one can visualize the force in terms of "how many times it's own weight."

Evaluating using the launch's exit velocity, the centrifugal force is about 11,000g.   11,000g was evaluated using the initial (when this thread started) proposed launch velocity with a 100 meter diameter spinner.   Launch velocity might have been increased since this tread started, this would mean even higher G.

Imagine you are standing on a merry-go-round that is turning, you will feel a force that tried to throw you off radially outward.  That is the centrifugal G force.  Gravity is still the same.  If that merry-go-round is going so fast that it is generating 11,000g, it will tear itself apart.  Assuming it is strong enough to hold itself together with you on it and your weight is 100 lb: Gravity is still 100 lb for you downward due to gravity, but the 11,000g centrifugal force means there will be a force of 1,100,000 lb pulling you off that merry-go-round radially outward away from the center of rotation.  That huge (1.1 million lb) radially outward "weight" will crush a human body into jelly.

Unless you can break the Laws of Physics, you can't change that.  A centrifugal force will be there whenever something spins.

For the object orbiting around a center, V is the linear velocity while orbiting, and it equals the velocity at release:
Centripetal /centrifugal acceleration is a = V²/R, here R is the distance to the center of rotation.
To express that in number of G's, you divide it by normal gravity's acceleration which is 9.8m/s².  (Meters per Second square)

At 11,000g, even the smallest of parts can self destruct when every thing is being pulled radially outward by 11000x it's own weight.  This is the force that they cannot get around without breaking the laws of physics.  To harden a payload to withstand that force will cost a bundle - this is what kills the economics of this launch method.

In an earlier reply on this thread, I did the math.  If the clamp that holds the launch vehicle down (radially) had only a contact area of 6 square inch and the payload launch vehicle is 200kg, the radially outward pressure on it will be high enough to make diamond.  So I had an earlier reply that shown the math, and joking that if I got that spinner, I will just spin a bucket of graphite with a 200kg cylinder of steel (cross section area of 6 square inch) sitting radially on it.  I would make diamond rather than sell space launches.

I know the math of centrifugal force. I think almost everyone has the concept down, at least at the merry-go-round level.
Nobody has even suggested this is suitable for humans. So irrelevant.
Nor has anyone speaking seriously stated the clamp mechanism, whatever it is, be unrealistically limited to 6 square inches. Besides, we can already make diamonds without a centrifuge.
As for payloads, who said they were trying to get around physics? Yes there will be that much force. Physics isn't broken. The math works. You still haven't stated a single physics "law" that is broken.

Sure, there are challenges in materials science, but they appear to be solving those. Satellite designs are already highly engineered and miniaturized, and designing them to take tremendous forces in one specific direction (WAY easier than ANY direction) isn't nearly as hard as you say it is. An actual launch isn't required to test the payloads ability to survive G-forces, so engineers will have excellent feedback prior to throwing hardware into space where it's out of reach.

Yes, actually it is.  The electronics used in guided projectiles have to withstand about a tenth of these levels and it is very challenging.  And it places serious constraints on the interconnects and components used.  Going up another factor of ten isn't impossible but it isn't trivial.  Just this part of the problem is likely to ruin the economics of the process.  Remember the only reason to do this is to lower launch costs, and if the satellites become too expensive it all falls apart.