 
     |
| Julia says 'Spin, spin, it's a suborbital win.' NASA tests centrifuge launch system. (Page 1/1) |
|
rinselberg
|
APR 10, 04:12 PM
|
|
If you liked the very recent Solar Sail discussion on our forum, you very possibly may also like this.
Let "Julia" tell you all about it.
|
|
|
|
Notorio
|
APR 14, 12:21 AM
|
|
|
Very interesting concept. Hmmmmmn, I suspect that the type of payloads will be very limited, due to the unequal shear force across the rocket. That might not be the correct terminology: it seems that a traditional rocket is designed to withstand gravity 'pulling down' and atmospheric resistance 'pushing down' and to hold the engines in place as they 'push up,' but in the vacuum centrifuge the force will be sideways, trying to bend the rocket like a straw.
|
|
|
|
Valkrie9
|
APR 14, 07:05 AM
|
|
Spinlaunch
The Facts Ma'am
Interesting point, the incredible G forces sustained by the missile disappears instantly upon release from the centrifuge's arm.
The success of the launch depends on the timing of the release, mere milliseconds, microseconds, from disaster.
|
|
|
|
Valkrie9
|
APR 14, 07:33 AM
|
|
* Note the design of the centrifuge's vacuum chamber, as it must resist external air pressure.
Two spherical sections nearly touching at the centers, where the rotor arm's shaft is located.
The video shows the projectile penetrating a barrier as it is released, holding the vacuum pressure.
Neat ideas.
|
|
|
|
Notorio
|
APR 14, 10:25 AM
|
|
Looks like 'g-hardening' is at the center of their projectile work. Very impressive stuff going on there and nice leverage of existing work in the field. 
|
|
|
|
theogre
|
APR 14, 11:42 AM
|
|
|
|
|
Valkrie9
|
APR 14, 11:17 PM
|
|
Luddites, Ned Lud’s Office, Sherwood Forest
!
' Whether you think that you can,
or that you can't, you are usually right.'
~ Henry Ford
' Vision without execution is just hallucination.'
~ Henry Ford
' Simplicity is the ultimate sophistication.'
~ Leonardo DaVinci
' We can not change the laws of physics, but we can try to move the limits ...'
~ Anonymous Porsche Engineer
' People who say it cannot be done should not interrupt those who are doing it.'
' The power of accurate observation is frequently called cynicism by those who don't have it. '
' Ignorance is a great time saver. You can form opinions without having to get the facts. '
' To any action there is always an opposite and equal reaction, in other words, the actions of two bodies upon each other are always equal and always opposite in direction. '
' Truth is ever to be found in simplicity, and not in the multiplicity and confusion of things. ' - Fragments from a Treatise on Revelation
~ Sir Isaac Newton
A few select comments from the vid, discussing the success of the launch.
ChessMasterNate
4 weeks ago
Your cynicism is not entirely justified.
This was a proof of concept, not their final facility. And that line you were drawing was the shadow. And as the ground was not flat, the apparent motion was not either.
I am going to assume that they want to put the real deal at 10,000+ feet.
I do think there are flaws in their design. I also think there are decent solutions to them.
Eric R
4 weeks ago
How many SpaceX Starship prototypes crashed and burned before their first successful landing?
My point is that you are being way overly critical for the first launch of a prototype of a brand new technology.
Eric R
4 weeks ago
Spin Launch would make one hell of a weapon. I’m surprised that the Department of Defense isn’t working on something similar to Spin Launch for a weapon system.
Mark Carr
2 months ago
They did it!! The damn well did it!!!
They spun a pointy thingy really fast in a circle, then let go of it!!
That, my friends, is science. By God, that's science!!
Richard Garrett
Richard Garrett
2 months ago
Crap video. New technologies happen in stages with a lot of testing.
Imagine if SpaceX gave up landing boosters vertical because it didn't go perfectly the first, second or even third time.
I really dislike this video because it is just a bunch of assumptions of bad things happening rather than looking at it as an incremental advancement.
This was a test launch and it appears they achieved what they wanted to.
They gathered a lot of data from it and have a long way to go before they launch things to space.
Will they succeed? Who knows. You certainly don't.
Lighten up on the negativity for views dude!
You probably aren't as smart as the guys that design and build stuff like this.
You are just a sideline pessimist trying to get likes on your videos.
Steven
2 months ago
You can't beat physics with hope. 🤡
Richard Garrett
2 months ago
@Steven Exactly. No real physics provided in the video trying to beat science in action. 🤡
Nunyer Bidness
3 months ago
Surely OP is assuming we all have at least a middle school education and know that escape velocity of Earth's gravity to achieve orbit is 11km/s. If Earth had no atmosphere. So all of the additional claims made by the "entrepreneur" are farcical entertainment. Releasing the projectile into ground level air would make for a spectacular reverse meteor. It would flare into plasma within seconds. 🌠
Subs
3 months ago
Well, maybe this tech can filter down to consumers for better rinsing of laundry and vegetables.
jhbbunch
3 months ago
Hey, 3000 years ago a guy used a spinlaunch device to kill Goliath. If it's in the bible, spinlaunch has to be true.
Pierre C
3 months ago
This is not feasible at all: If the rotating part is balanced before the launch, it will no longer be after the launch, and the thing will fly apart. If it is not balanced before launch, it will never be able to reach the necessary angular velocity without supplying much more energy than required by a conventional rocket. Either way, the thing will rattle into smithereens. The vacuum chamber will require an escape door of some sort which can only open inward ( remember the Magdeburg spheres?). The vehicle will then have to exit by smashing into inrushing athmosphere at 10 times the speed of sound, and I cant believe the contents of the space thing will be able to survive the blast! According to Wikipedia, gas detonation velocities are generally around 1600 m/s to 1800 m/s, and this thing will safely hit a wall of air at 2300m/Sec? Gimme a break!
tipoima
3 months ago
"Oh, sure, we'll just have the rocket go from vacuum to 1 atmosphere at 2 km/s. What's the worst that could happen?"
astrolover 95
3 months ago
I remember when SpaceX's reusable tickets were supposedly "BUSTED" too. But now look at them.
tipoima
3 months ago
Your logic is flawed.
You can't just say "this one idea is wrong, therefore you're always wrong".
These guys want their rocket to fly 2 km/s in low atmosphere. No rocket is gonna survive this.
These guys want to spin their rocket at 2 km/s. That's almost 10000 g of acceleration. For *hours*.
astrolover 95
3 months ago
@tipoima that's nice, it still doesn't change the fact that just because he claims it's "BUSTED" that it actually will never go anywhere.
That was my point, he insisted and still seems to insist that SpaceX is wrong and that it simply can't work even though they've already shown that it does.
Now he's also claiming that this new technology can't work and has been busted, and it reminds me of what he said about spacex's reusable rockets.
It seems to me that you're the one who's "logic" is flawed because I never said that he is always wrong, I only brought up a point that something that he continues to say won't work, works.
So why should I accept what he says about this?
tipoima
3 months ago
@astrolover 95 You don't have to accept his opinions, but you can't deny actual facts.
If you believe that, despite all the possible ways for this to implode on itself, it can still work - that's fine.
But saying "well you were wrong on SpaceX" isn't an argument and it suggests you didn't even consider his points.
astrolover 95
3 months ago (edited)
@tipoima The fact remains that just because he claims it's been busted doesn't mean anything.
He supposedly busted SpaceX but he was still wrong. Just because he supposedly busted this does not mean that he is right.
It seems like you're trying to tell me that it is a fact that this simply cannot work but we will not know whether or not that is true until after it either fails or succeeds.
Every new technology has downsides and challenges, the problem with thunderfoot is he finds these downsides and challenges and then acts as if they cannot be overcome.
You say I cannot deny actual facts but it is not a "fact" that this will fail, it is merely thunderfoot's opinion.
Go back and watch his videos on the mini facts for why reusable rockets will fail and you'll see what I mean that just because there are challenges to overcome does not mean that it is destined to fail.
Now stop harassing me about a comment I made about this video reminding me of another video he made supposedly busting a new technology that he claimed could not work and was destined to fail, even though it has now become one of the most successful launch technologies to date.
tipoima
3 months ago
@astrolover 95
Did you even read my comment...
astrolover 95
3 months ago
@tipoima yes, but apparently you didn't read mine. I never said that he was wrong about this because he was wrong about SpaceX, I only ever said that it reminds me of that.
You're trying to claim that I'm ignoring facts, but him supposedly busting this is not a fact and his opinion that it cannot work is not a fact.
All he did is list a series of challenges that they would have to overcome, that's all, but then he claims that they can't be overcome so it can't happen at all.
He's making the same mistake as the creationists he also likes to make videos about when they say that because they cannot see how something can work, it can't.
The SpaceX thing is just an example of something he claimed could not work but turned out to be wrong. Which means it was never actually busted like he claimed.
You're trying to pretend that I'm trying to make that into some kind of argument to say that he's wrong about this because he was wrong about SpaceX but all I said was that this reminds me of the SpaceX video he made, not that it proves he's wrong about this.
Like I said earlier he could turn out to be right and he could turn out to be wrong, we won't know until after it succeeds or fails.
The fact is that he's doing the same thing he did with SpaceX and declaring that it just can't work even though they're only the first to try this method.
tipoima
3 months ago
@astrolover 95 All I was saying that this is a very different situation.
SpaceX video was based on opinions.
This video is based on facts - that laws of physics are gonna tear this thing to shreds if they use it.
tipoima
3 months ago
@astrolover 95
It's not an argument from ignorance. Some issues with the concept are based in simple physics.
The instability of the system that can only be solved by shooting a counterweight into the ground at 2 km/s (which is a good way to blow yourself up) or making the thing MUCH heavier than the payload (which would make it much less efficient)
The massive drag from having a rocket so fast fly at sea level, which will both slow it down massively (which again, defies the whole point) and require crazy heat shielding.
Huge vacuum setup that is about as safe as launching a normal rocket for hours straight.
You can't just invent a way around these issues.
You can't just turn off conservation of momentum, you can't turn off drag and you can't keep reinforcing the launcher forever and hoping rust doesn't make a tiny hole in your expensive rocket thrower.
astrolover 95
3 months ago (edited)
@tipoima what you just said is an argument from ignorance. "I personally can think of no way to solve the issues so I declare that it is impossible to do."
This is also why it reminds me of SpaceX, because thunderfoot did exactly the same stuff there as well, claiming that the problems he saw made it totally impractical for commercial use guaranteeing failure. You can claim all you want that the laws of physics make it impossible but your only doing that because you cannot see another possible way. And that's what makes it an argument from ignorance. If you can't demonstrate that there is truly no possible way, at all, them all you can do is say "I don't know." But instead your declaring total impossibility as if it's a fact. Then there s what you said about 1 possible solution being a good way to blow yourself up. Sure, it's a great way to that if it doesn't go to plan, but then again, you could say the same about a rocket, and being less efficient with then other method, well, rockets are exactly efficient either. So with those arguments rockets must be impossible. But efficiency isn't the point of the system, it's just meant to be another way to get things into orbit using far less chemical propellant than what a pure rocket engine would use.
Rory King
3 months ago
I’m gonna laugh when the larger centrifuge successfully launches a rocket, because there’s nothing better than laughing at a pessimist.
------
A space launch upstart company wishes to hire engineers able to solve tough problems.
Engineering Forums
|
|
|
|
Valkrie9
|
APR 15, 01:47 AM
|
|
!
Enumerate the failures and lives lost to achieve this rocket launch.
|
|
|
|