NASA Will Test SpinLaunch's Ability To Fling Satellites Into Orbit (newatlas.com) 85
NASA has signed up to test SpinLaunch's extraordinary whirl 'n' hurl space launch technology, which accelerates a launch vehicle to hypersonic speeds using an electric centrifuge instead of a rocket, hurling it skyward like a space discus. New Atlas reports: The idea behind SpinLaunch is as staggering as the company's name is appropriate. The idea of winding up and throwing satellites most of the way into orbit just boggles the mind. But in initial testing, this company's kinetic launch system, which looks externally a lot like a turbocharger, has shown promise as an environmentally-friendly, and potentially cost-effective replacement for first-stage rocket launches. [T]he company says it'll be appropriate for smaller launch vehicles weighing up to about 440 lb (200 kg), carrying ultra-ruggedized satellites capable of dealing with the forces involved. The SpinLaunch system will do the first part, flinging them high into the air, where a second-stage rocket can take over and give them the final push into orbit.
And the advantages are pretty compelling. SpinLaunch says that eliminating the first-stage rocket from the launch vehicle will cut out some 70 percent of the fuel and structures needed by a traditional launch vehicle, and that it can get appropriate loads into orbit using a quarter of the fuel, and at a tenth of the price. NASA is one of many parties interested in this possibility, and it's now signed a Space Act agreement with SpinLaunch to develop and integrate a NASA payload for this kinetic launch system, which will be flung skyward from Spaceport America, New Mexico, in a test flight later this year.
This, like all SpinLaunch "regular" test flights to date, will be a slower sub-orbital launch with a speed closer to 1,000 mph (1,600 km/h, Mach 1.3) than 5,000 mph. The payload will be designed to take a range of measurements, which will be analyzed by both groups. All non-proprietary information learned from this test will be published, and SpinLaunch says it's working towards its first orbital launch in 2025. A render posted late last year by SpinLaunch shows how their system works.
And the advantages are pretty compelling. SpinLaunch says that eliminating the first-stage rocket from the launch vehicle will cut out some 70 percent of the fuel and structures needed by a traditional launch vehicle, and that it can get appropriate loads into orbit using a quarter of the fuel, and at a tenth of the price. NASA is one of many parties interested in this possibility, and it's now signed a Space Act agreement with SpinLaunch to develop and integrate a NASA payload for this kinetic launch system, which will be flung skyward from Spaceport America, New Mexico, in a test flight later this year.
This, like all SpinLaunch "regular" test flights to date, will be a slower sub-orbital launch with a speed closer to 1,000 mph (1,600 km/h, Mach 1.3) than 5,000 mph. The payload will be designed to take a range of measurements, which will be analyzed by both groups. All non-proprietary information learned from this test will be published, and SpinLaunch says it's working towards its first orbital launch in 2025. A render posted late last year by SpinLaunch shows how their system works.
Scam (Score:4, Insightful)
ultra-ruggedized satellites capable of dealing with the forces involved
There's your problem, right there.
This, like all SpinLaunch "regular" test flights to date, will be a slower sub-orbital launch with a speed closer to 1,000 mph (1,600 km/h, Mach 1.3) than 5,000 mph
Uhuh.
Let me guess: Somebody's looking for millions of $$$ of venture capital.
Re: (Score:1)
NASA was willing to test the EM drive too. I'm not saying they're gullible or anything, but I think a lot of gulls hang around the launch site.
Re:Scam (Score:5, Informative)
The EM drive wouldn't be a massive investment and there was probably something to be learned in debunking it.
This thing sounds a lot more like "we need to build some large, expensive installations, employ a whole load of 'administrators' in plush offices, and it will take many years to prove that it's completely impractical".
(ie. Exactly what NASA does best)
Re: (Score:2)
As soon as the NASA budget is requested for any big item, the politicians and other parties behind it must be required to sign something authorising document that says "I stake my political and/or engineering reputation on this project and I am convinced it is worth the vast sums we will throw at it".
Then when the rest of us are proved right and the companies involved have pissed away the last cent of the b
Re: Scam (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:3)
It also massively drove development in new capacitor technologies which have applications well beyond railguns.
Re: (Score:2)
Who is going to require that? Certainly not the voters. Voters' standards, and desire for responsibility, have been going down, not up.
Funding [Re:Scam] (Score:4)
The problem is no-one ends up OWNING these disastrous wastes of money -
It's a private company, and the private company owns the facility.
NASA isn't buying the facility. It's paying the company to launch a payload.
As soon as the NASA budget is requested for any big item,
NASA is not buying a big item. This is a suborbital launch on a privately-developed facility.
the politicians and other parties behind it must be required to sign something authorising document that says "I stake my political and/or engineering reputation on this project and I am convinced it is worth the vast sums we will throw at it".
The people who are funding it are "investors including Kleiner Perkins, Google Ventures, Airbus Ventures, Catapult Ventures, Lauder Partners and McKinley Capital."
Source: https://www.cnbc.com/2021/11/0... [cnbc.com]
Re: (Score:2)
The people who are funding it are "investors including Kleiner Perkins, Google Ventures, Airbus Ventures, Catapult Ventures, Lauder Partners and McKinley Capital."
And The People of the United States of America [spacenews.com].
Re: (Score:2)
I think the GP meant "owning" in the sense of bearing responsibility, rather than property ownership. In other words, though they have put massive amounts of other people's money into an abject failure that was destined to be a failure from the outset, they do not own the failure.
Who actually owns equipment, real estate and intellectual property left over after a government funded contract is an interesting question though. If the whole project was a work-for-hire contract that the government paid for, it s
Re: (Score:2)
They are not building the facility, they are not developing the technology, and they are not buying any part of the intellectual property.
Re: (Score:2)
You're missing the point. NASA is buying a launch.
They are not building the facility, they are not developing the technology, and they are not buying any part of the intellectual property.
They're not buying a commodity launch though. They're actually paying for the whole development chain and all of the physical technology and all of the development. They are also being very, very specific about what is being built. If they were just buying a launch, then they would buy a launch that could be supported by any spacecraft that met the basic requirements for their payload.
Think of it like wedding photography. The usual choice is between paying for the photographer and a set of prints, with addi
Re: (Score:2)
You're missing the point. NASA is buying a launch. They are not building the facility, they are not developing the technology, and they are not buying any part of the intellectual property.
They're not buying a commodity launch though. They're actually paying for the whole development chain and all of the physical technology and all of the development.
No, they are not.
They are buying a launch of NASA payload.
NASA is not funding the development; NASA are not funding "all of the physical technology".
I have not the slightest idea where you are getting your information, but it's wrong.
Re: (Score:2)
No, they are not.
They are buying a launch of NASA payload.
NASA is not funding the development; NASA are not funding "all of the physical technology".
I have not the slightest idea where you are getting your information, but it's wrong.
I am very confused here. Are we even talking about the same thing? I am talking about the development of SLS. NASA has spent about $23 billion on it. If you are talking about SLS, are you saying that one payload on SLS costs $23 billion dollars?
Re: (Score:2)
No, they are not.
They are buying a launch of NASA payload.
NASA is not funding the development; NASA are not funding "all of the physical technology".
I have not the slightest idea where you are getting your information, but it's wrong.
I am very confused here. Are we even talking about the same thing? I am talking about the development of SLS.
Apparently not. We are discussing this article [newatlas.com] , which is about Spinlaunch.
Re: (Score:2)
Apparently not. We are discussing this article [newatlas.com] , which is about Spinlaunch.
In general we were, since that's the subject of the article. The post you actually replied to, however, was lamenting the fact that government R&D money gets frequently thrown into expensive failures, but no-one who directed the money there ever takes responsibility for ("owns") the failures and specifically included SLS in that. You misinterpreted that as having to do with actual ownership (also you apparently thought it was a specific statement about Spinlaunch rather than a general statement about mo
Re: (Score:2)
Apparently not. We are discussing this article [newatlas.com] , which is about Spinlaunch.
In general we were, since that's the subject of the article. The post you actually replied to, however, was lamenting the fact that government R&D money gets frequently thrown into expensive failures, but no-one who directed the money there ever takes responsibility for ("owns") the failures and specifically included SLS in that. ...
It was still talking about Spin Launch. SLS was indeed mentioned, but only as an aside, as another example of "disastrous wastes of money". But somehow you decided that the aside had changed the subject, and you didn't need to actually mention that you were talking about something else.
With respect to Spin Launch, I think it would have been an interesting idea to try as a possible way to reduce launch cost in 1970. Fifty years later, though, it's been left behind.
Re: (Score:2)
It was still talking about Spin Launch. SLS was indeed mentioned, but only as an aside, as another example of "disastrous wastes of money". But somehow you decided that the aside had changed the subject, and you didn't need to actually mention that you were talking about something else.
I fully admit I wasn't clear enough and I assumed too much about people being on the same page about expensive failures in general rather than just Spinlaunch specifically. I've already said that you are correct that, for Spinlaunch NASA is just buying a "launch" (or several). I'm not sure what else you want there.
Of course that doesn't absolve you of any responsibility to check what you're replying to when you write a response. In your replies here, you seem to completely ignore that your initial reply - t
Re: (Score:3)
SLS was entirely the Senate's fault. NASA never wanted it, but the Senate wanted to throw gobbs of money into it, as it would benefit many of their states with the funds employing people.
As for this, even if it doesn't work for satellites, it could still be used to launch raw materials for building things in space, such as water and metals that would be reworked into shapes needed to build stations and larger ships.
Re: (Score:2)
The senate votes on amendments, and they voted to approve the amendment, or failed to amend to remove the forced funding, therefore the senate forced it on NASA. It is every senator's fault.
Buying a launch, not the launcher [Re:Scam] (Score:2)
This thing sounds a lot more like "we need to build some large, expensive installations, employ a whole load of 'administrators' in plush offices, and it will take many years to prove that it's completely impractical". (ie. Exactly what NASA does best)
Uh, to be fair, NASA isn't building (nor paying for) a "large, expensive installation". The company is privately funded, and the facility was put together with private (venture) funds.
NASA has a long-established program to buy suborbital launches of NASA payloads, and has agreed to buy a launch of a NASA payload on this launcher to try it out.
To quote the article: [newatlas.com] "NASA is one of many parties interested in this possibility, and it's now signed a Space Act agreement with SpinLaunch to develop and integrat
Re:Scam (Score:5, Insightful)
The G-forces involved means that it's really only suitable for launching bulk payloads. It could be useful for that, though. Sending chunks of ice to a space station has obvious benefits.
Re: (Score:3)
The G-forces involved means that it's really only suitable for launching bulk payloads. It could be useful for that, though. Sending chunks of ice to a space station has obvious benefits.
Through moving air? With no motors or anything attached...?
That'd be one hell of an accurate throw.
Re: (Score:2)
No, you will still need guidance obviously. But I could believe sufficient hardware for that could handle the high Gs more than I could believe it of a satellite payload.
Re: (Score:2)
I see there's still enough mod points being handed out to use to troll with.
Slashdot's moderation system has always been broken, but having one and then starving it of modpoints is not working.
Re:Scam (Score:4, Insightful)
Not the troll modder, but whatever caused the drought of points for me has been solved, last week I received 3 sets of 5, this week 2 sets.
I would have modded you as informative, what you were saying was exactly what I thought of for this, ice, raw metal, things like that would have no issue with this launch, and we know we can do guidance and engines that can take this kind of shock as we can build hypersonic weapons and guided "bullets" fired from tanks, this is much like those use cases.
To build any kind of large structure or large ship in space will take many launches of raw material. We then could process that material in space somehow, but that is just further development we will have to make as well if we want to do anything more than vacation in space like we do now.
Re: (Score:3)
It has a second stage rocket. The initial launch gimmick is just a replacement for the first stage.
Re:Scam (Score:5, Interesting)
I don't disagree with you - this approach ought to work for sending bulk cargo. On the other hand, I don't think anyone knows how ice behaves when under 10,000-G loading. If glaciers are any indication, the ice will flow, and then you have to worry about spin-launched rocket having a not-axisymmetric mass distribution. Not an insurmountable problem, mind you, just one more tricky thing that'll need investigation.
Related question: I wonder if some forms of ice [wikipedia.org] are more robust for this application than others.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
According to the googles, Spinlaunch signed a DIU cost-sharing contract in June of 2019. I imagine that someone at or near the Pentagon had the same idea. But then, military applications immediately come to mind when considering essentially any new launch system. This one could conceivably also provide a high rate of fire with zero propellant.
I really hope that whether it succeeds or fails, we eventually get a good look at their counterweight solution. The suspense is irritating me.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It really isn't even good for that. Their scaled-up, full-power version is going to have a max payload of about 200 kg. You're going to have to cram orbital propulsion, guidance, power, and rendezvous systems in that along with the ice, and robot arm/airlock operations of some sort to retrieve it, all for a small fraction of the amount of water that could be sent alongside astronauts on a Dragon, or about 0.1% of a Starship load.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
ultra-ruggedized satellites capable of dealing with the forces involved
There's your problem, right there.
There are plenty of electronics designed to go into shells that are literally shot out of cannons. While the final velocity is lower than for a satellite, the acceleration is higher because it is being _shot out of a cannon_. There may be some limitations on what can go into these satellites as a result, but withstanding the acceleration is certainly feasible. I do have concerns about a system like this being viable, but that's not one of them.
My concern is about the atmosphere. This system has to reach som
ISTM (Score:2)
200Kg does allow for much of a second-stage booster.
Oh, and that includes the payload.
Re: (Score:1)
n't
middle of the ocean? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Lunar sling launcher [Re:middle of the ocean?] (Score:2)
Although this concept may make major changes in the space launch industry on Earth it might be adaptable to manufacturing industries on the Moon ...
...
Either one would work but a spin accelerator would be more compact.
Like this?
Analysis of a Lunar Sling Launcher [researchgate.net], J. British Interplanetary Soc.(2005).
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
There's a rather good novel by Robert Heinlein where this is the central feature:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, I think it is a mass driver?
So would work well on the moon, asteroids or maybe in space (with contra-rotating bits, I assume, I'm not a rocket scientist).
Re: middle of the ocean? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: middle of the ocean? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Hmm...some quick number crunching shows that if we were to strip mine a trillion tons per year for 1000 years, the mass of the moon would be reduced by only 0.0014%.
Somehow, I can't get really worried about the problem you foresee....
Note, for the record, that we strip mine a few BILLION tons per year now.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, we can. Because we can strip mine the moon for 100 millenia and not make a significant difference, moonlight-wise. Say, in round numbers, about ten times as long as what passed for civilization here. Or 5000 generations. Yeah, they'll know things used to be different, but for any ten generations, the change will be unnoticeable.
And don't sneer at corporate profits driving everything. Because the hardware you're using to post here only exists for that reason. Back when I was a kid, all the compu
Re: (Score:2)
Direct inventions for space exploration:
Re: (Score:2)
So was I.
It's quite possible you're older than I am. Or not. My 60th b'day was back a ways....
Re: (Score:2)
Hardly 'Direct inventions'.
Most of these were (partially) funded by NASA but invented by outsiders. Often based on already existing tech.
A lot of these are also of the 'improved' type, not the actually 'invented' type.
It's obvious the article doesn't take itself very seriously.
Re: (Score:2)
The moon is about as bright as asphalt. And no, the moon did not come from the core of Earth. And no, we are not going to hurt the tides by mining the moon. In summary...just...no. You haven't the slightest clue what you are talking about.
Re: (Score:2)
If it's flung off accidentally sideways instead of upwards, then air resistance will slow it down pronto and it'll smack into the dirt without hurting anyone.
Unless someone is really unlucky and in an area that they should not be in - for this reason. Down range of a space launch? Never a good place to be!
They did not build this near habitation, for this reason.
Re: (Score:2)
They do seem to have a control room directly adjacent to it though... In reality, if it takes off at the wrong angle it will completely destroy the structure with fragments flying at over rail gun speeds - you can't be even remotely near it.
Re: (Score:2)
Right, so we have a 200kg projectile travelling at supersonic speeds.
US Navy guns fired larger projectiles at lower speeds for ranges of 40,000 yards.
Re: (Score:3)
I wouldn't want to be near this thing if it craps out and sends the vehicle on an unplanned trajectory. Seems like it could go anywhere along a very long line.
Let me suggest that you wouldn't want to be near any launch vehicle if it craps out and sends the vehicle on an unplanned trajectory.
Debunked Already (Score:5, Informative)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
There are many fundamental problems, including
1) The huge g forces on the payload.
2) The payload is launched with a large angular momentum in the toppling sense (OK if it is spherical).
3) The payload velocity is highest early in the flight where the atmosphere is thickest (the opposite from a conventional rocket) so not very energy efficient.
4) The launch moment (from a very rapidly spinning arm, noting that this is heavyweight hardware) must be extremely accurate, or the direction is wrong.
5) The large launch chamber must contain a vacuum, which needs to be restored after each launch. As the purpose of the thing seems mainly to launch tens of thousands of Musk's Starlink satellites, it is going to be slow.
Re: (Score:1)
You must have not watched the clip you've provided. Also, the title of the video is quite misleading to get more views.
The author admits there are many issues but nothing which can't be solved.
Re: Debunked Already (Score:2)
They would need at the very least a counterweight launched into a pool and airlock behind the membranes to minimize vacuum loss.
I find it strange they build their test setup without the former at the very least, balancing the launch arm is too fundamental to ignore.
Re: (Score:2)
They obviously have a solution for this. Spring-loaded weight that centers itself on launch? Liquid counterweight that gets released through a manifold that breaks it up into a spray so that it doesn't impact the chamber? Whether their solution is really viable at scale is a bigger question, ha ha, but they clearly have some idea of how they're doing it.
Re: Debunked Already (Score:2)
They would need at the very least a counterweight launched into a pool and airlock behind the membranes to minimize vacuum loss and splashback.
I find it strange they build their test setup without the counterweight at the very least, balancing the launch arm is too fundamental to ignore. Going to take a big pool though for it not to disintegrate from the shock wave.
Let's not use "debunked" (Score:4)
Even if this is proven not to work, I feel it's not fair to say "debunked". No one is claiming new physics here. It's a valid attempt to try something different. People do not like change and too often we throw shade on new ideas and ways of doing things, but I think those efforts should be rewarded. It's how we progress and learn.
We'll definitely learn a lot through this process. We may find it's not a viable method of delivering payloads to orbit, but it may be a viable method of delivering payloads in other ways like moving precious metals from asteroid mining to Earth (at considerably lower speed of course).
Re: (Score:2)
NASA does not necessarily think that this is going to be useful on Earth. On the Moon, the escape velocity is only 1/5 of Earth and the vacuum comes for free. Consequently, even if it is not practical on Earth, it makes sense to develop the technology on Earth so that it could be deployed on a future Moon base. Mars with its thin atmosphere (1% of Earth) and its 45% escape velocity could also be a good candidate.
RTFP (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
I did find that video informative. It seemed to debunk SpinLaunch's video more-so then the general concept, although I'll agree the general concept might never work. The follow-up Thunderf00t video contrasting SpinLaunch with a supergun makes me wish someone was developing a supergun.
Re: (Score:2)
Gerald Bull was doing so in the 1980s/90s, but the Israelis too offense that he decided to work with the Iraqis and assassinated him.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Space-based system maybe? (Score:2)
In space you don't need to create a void in a huge chamber.
You could have two counter-rotating systems to keep the balance.
If you don't need to accelerate fast, you need only a short rigid arm and a long cable.
From Moon low orbit to Earth you only need some 0.82 km/s plus aerobraking (if I read the solar system delta v map correctly). Or, from Moon surface to low Moon orbit is 1.73 km/s (but with the abrasive Moon dust operation on Lunar surface might not be maintainable for long).
Maybe future operations in
Re: (Score:1)
The whole idea of spinlaunch is that you don't have to spend energy to put fuel and engines (the first stage of a rocket) into (partial) orbit. If you put the whole launch system in space you negate that advantage.
Also that counter-rotating system for balance means that you cut efficiency in half because you have to launch a counter weight in the opposite direction of the payload. So you first need to put twice the mass of the payload into orbit (payload and it's counter weight) and the same energy you put
Re: (Score:2)
If you put the launch system into space, you reduce the capabilities needed from a third stage. And for all its faults, this launcher is not mass intensive, only energy intensive.
Fetchez la vache (Score:2)
Fetchez la vache!
They make a nice video tho. (Score:2)
A render posted late last year by SpinLaunch shows how their system works.
They spent a lot of money making that video.
Crazy (Score:2)
This is one of those technologies where you hear about it ad start looking into it, thinking:
This can't possibly work.
Wait, could this work?
Wait, this might just work!
Super fun to think about and watch play out.
Re: (Score:1)
Almost, you just got the order wrong:
Wait, this might just work!
Wait, could this work?
This can't possibly work.
Air resistance? (Score:2)
Not a rocket surgeon, but I wonder how much of an issue air resistance would be. For rockets, the speed increases while air density decreases, because of the gain in altitude. As a result, air resistance should be relatively low over the course of the flight.
With this system (or any design that accelerates the object at ground level and hurls it into space) the projectile's speed is highest at launch, when the air density is highest. I'd expect air friction to convert a percent of the satellite's energy to
Re: (Score:1)