Could spin launch be used to launch nuclear waste to orbit to be intercepted by a space station then launched to the sun for disposal? It seems like a safe way to get the stuff up there, nothing can explode with no rocket to lift it.
Could spin launch be used to launch nuclear waste to orbit to be intercepted by a space station then launched to the sun for disposal? It seems like a safe way to get the stuff up there, nothing can explode with no rocket to lift it.
In theory yes, but remember the nuclear waste/radioactive elements are the heaviest (largest mass). Then one has to consider what's going to happen should one of these spin-mass projectiles is launched prematurely or the spin-arm breaks? You have the potential for showering our planet in radioactive waste. Which is something we have done many times before when we exploded nuclear warheads in the atmosphere.
Nuclear waste is the least of our worries compared to the lead which was and is still gasoline. The lead has killed far more people and is making us humans less smart with every generation. See the video posted below.
Best thing to do with nuclear waste is to become educated about it. It's not as dangerous as all of the anti-nuke protesters have been saying. Far more people have been died in one coal mine accident than have been killed in all nuclear accidents. Coal mining and oil spills have altered and destroyed more of our planet for human habitat than nuclear.
in the documentary they calculate the cost per launch using the cost of electricity for industries... but on the other hand they mention they will have to bring their own power to the remote launch site... but they don't mention it means the cost of electricity will be a order of magnitude higher.
The cost per launch should be less than for the first launch since they'll use regenerative braking and, presumably, storage. So it's big bucks to get it spinning once, then not so much for each subsequent launch. Feasibly, they could just take a looong time to get the first one up to speed - the cost would be similar in electricity but the load on the power source would be spread out and much kinder on infrastructure.
Stupid question.... Why isn't Spinlaunch located at a higher elevation than where they are to reduce air resistance and require less energy and cost? Why not Alma, Colorado which is at 10,000 feet?
in the documentary they calculate the cost per launch using the cost of electricity for industries... but on the other hand they mention they will have to bring their own power to the remote launch site... but they don't mention it means the cost of electricity will be a order of magnitude higher.
The cost per launch should be less than for the first launch since they'll use regenerative braking and, presumably, storage. So it's big bucks to get it spinning once, then not so much for each subsequent launch. Feasibly, they could just take a looong time to get the first one up to speed - the cost would be similar in electricity but the load on the power source would be spread out and much kinder on infrastructure.
not really, they're dropping the counterweight, that's pure waste of energy. also technology for regenerative braking and energy storage cost money, so regenerative braking is more in the domain of "not wasting too much energy" rather than "cheaper energy to keep the cost down".
spreading the load over time is bullshit... they say they don't go hard vacuum, so there are loses due to air drag during spinning phase, it means you can't afford a long spin up.
they mention in the documentary that it will be like 150MWh per spinup and talking about several launches per day.. i can't see how you would spread the load... if you calculate 2 hour spinup @ 75MW , 1 hour spindown and 3 hours for inspections + payload and counterweight integration you end up 6 hours per launch yielding 4 launches per day in a 24/7 operation while needing a 80MW powersource. even if you interpret the "multiple" as 2 launches per day you will get no more than 8 hours for spinup - and still would need a 20MW source.
Stupid question.... Why isn't Spinlaunch located at a higher elevation than where they are to reduce air resistance and require less energy and cost? Why not Alma, Colorado which is at 10,000 feet?
When you consider location, you need to take into account many factors. Like workforce availability, logistics, land use planning and so on. It may be the best place in one regard but a complete showstopper in others. In US AFAIK all of the serious launch sites are located on the coastline, so rockets fly over the water and not populated areas.
Must also cross no airway if possible. Because hitting an airliner would be unfortunate.
Could spin launch be used to launch nuclear waste to orbit to be intercepted by a space station then launched to the sun for disposal? It seems like a safe way to get the stuff up there, nothing can explode with no rocket to lift it.
I've only looked at a few pages of this thread and not seen an estimate, so my rough estmate is you'd still need to launch the stuff while it is travelling at around 8 km per second, and it would have to withstand 40 million g.
So no chance.
The US Navy spent $500 for a linear electrometric "spinlauncher". Just like with the spinning spinlauncher the testing or the porotype worked. But they abandoned the project. Not sure why.
The US Navy spent $500 for a linear electrometric "spinlauncher". Just like with the spinning spinlauncher the testing or the porotype worked. But they abandoned the project. Not sure why.
$500. That's kinda cheap!
Why have they made this video? I realise it's some Tuber making it but they've cooperated enough to suggest they were keen for it to happen.
There's a fair amount of 'debunking' that they've answered, but do they really need to? The proof of the pudding, after all, is in the eating and since they are well on the way to that they presumably have funding in hand. They don't need to answer all those willing it to fail, or 'proving' it can't work - eventually they will do a real demo or even an actual launch. Or not. But either way I can't see why they have to do this now.
Maybe they need more funding, but surely the answer there is to refute all the debunking to their potential funders, not the Internet at large. And, ISTM, if they really need to convince people it's a goer, surely keeping their wick dry until the last moment would prevent those debunkers having time to think up different reasons it can't work.
Can be just youtube doing their usual - placing normal comments into spam.
If Youtube puts a verified checkmark channel comment in the spam folder, then the system if broken.
Anyway, I had a good scan of the comments, focused mostly on the direct replies to the OP, and there's plenty of critical ones. I suspect your comment was too easily squashed on account of you being so well known and already having debunked the project. I expect Phil Mason would be similarly censored.[/color][/size][/b]
I do hope that's not the case. I thought it was a pretty reasonable comment.
I just posted a test comment on an old video and it seems to show up. So it doesn't look like I've been hidden on his channel. Can others see my comment?
Why have they made this video? I realise it's some Tuber making it but they've cooperated enough to suggest they were keen for it to happen.
It would be interesting to know if they approached him, or he approached them.
If they approached him then obviously they were looking for some some good publicity as a bit of PR damage control.
There's a fair amount of 'debunking' that they've answered, but do they really need to? The proof of the pudding, after all, is in the eating and since they are well on the way to that they presumably have funding in hand. They don't need to answer all those willing it to fail, or 'proving' it can't work - eventually they will do a real demo or even an actual launch. Or not. But either way I can't see why they have to do this now.
Maybe they need more funding, but surely the answer there is to refute all the debunking to their potential funders, not the Internet at large.
Having a big reputable engineering channel do that for you is incredibly valuable.
The US Navy spent $500 for a linear electrometric "spinlauncher".
Citation? Only research project I can
find is Chinese, though they might be copying something.
So they had a circular maglev track and quickly retracted the part of it in front of the launch tube to launch?
A railgun is neither a linear electric motor nor spinning though. The Chinese research project is both.
A railgun is neither a linear electric motor nor spinning though. The Chinese research project is both.
The US Navy disagrees with you. I take it you did not read the first few sentences of the article.
What am I supposed to be seeing? There is no mention of "linear", "circular" or "spin". It was just a straight bore railgun.
Can others see my comment?
scrolled deep into the comments, but not a single one from you.
Can others see my comment?
scrolled deep into the comments, but not a single one from you.
The Parker solar probe video?
I just checked on anotherb rowswr and it's there, along with someone who replied to me. So I'm definitely not blocked on his channel.
Can others see my comment?
scrolled deep into the comments, but not a single one from you.
The Parker solar probe video?
I just checked on anotherb rowswr and it's there, along with someone who replied to me. So I'm definitely not blocked on his channel.
yes on that one, seems there is an algorithm also on comments which decides which ones are shown to whom.