37
It can also do laundry
Get back to your workbench, dad. /s
I heard about this and it's a great idea if it works. It's not totally fuel free as the throwing pay gets it mostly out of the atmosphere and there is a small rocket (last stage for a normal rocket) that puts the payload in the right place.
It's even far from fuel free, to reach Low Earth Orbit a rocket needs between 9.3 and 10km/s of delta-v.
According to the video the system is launching the rocket at mach 6, which is equivalent to 2km/s.
So the system is providing only 1/5 of the energy needed to get to orbit. It's good but I'm not sure it is worth the drawback of having to handle the huge acceleration.
On the other hand the same system on the moon would provide enough energy to reach orbit, it would just need a small amount of propellant to circularize.
Or by increasing slightly the speed of the system it could even send stuff straight to earth with no propellant.
20% of the delta-v is not the same as 20% of the energy or fuel. The early stage when the rocket is the heaviest and down in the thickest atmosphere is by far the most fuel-expensive.
That actually makes it much worse. Kinetic energy is a square law so to reach orbit at 5 times the velocity requires 5x5=25 times the energy they're currently using. And air resistance is also a square law so making it go 5 times faster also results in 25 times the air resistance and 25 times the heating due to it.
Most likely if they did get it going fast enough to make it to orbit, it'd burn up in the lower atmosphere before it even got very far.
They don't need to get 100% of the orbital energy into the object at launch. Scarabic's point is that if it can just offer an alternative for getting through the lower atmosphere, it can save a lot of fuel.
So, you want to build a trebuchet on the moon to throw rocks at Earth?
Yes, who wouldn't?
Fuck yea
The idea of throwing something into space isn't anything new, tbh I've always kinda wondered why no one has spent more time developing it.
Edit: I wonder how many Gs the rocket experiences while spinning, and if a human could theoretically survive it long enough to get thrown into space. I can see it now: rockets becoming luxury space vehicles for rich people while the spin launch is how poor people commute to the space dock.
The projectile experiences wicked g-forces when it is being spun up: around 10,000 times the force of gravity. This is enough to tear the skin and muscle off a human being. This means SpinLaunch will not be going into the astronaut business. They also won’t be able to drive large satellites into orbit. The projected weight limit for the system would be payloads of about 440 pounds. That is a lot less than something like the Hubble Space Telescope weighs. -- source
I mean, you would in fact get the astronaut into orbit, provided your container was water tight.
Jesus fuck. I know humans can withstand extremely high g-forces for short periods of time, but 10,000 Gs is a lotta Gs.
So.... Wouldn't a railgun system be able to do the same thing with less energy consumption?
I think it would have to be crazy long up the side of a mountain or something to work. I always thought that would be cool to see. I'm just an ignorant layperson though. I know little of the actual science, but I have read a lot of science fiction in my life.
I don't think it would need to be all that long. The Navy considered putting railguns on ships, they decided against it because they figured out pretty quickly that the munitions would have to be shot lower than the horizon so that they weren't firing shots into space, if they missed the target.
I was wondering why they would care about firing shots into space, but then I realized that it's probably not enough velocity to escape our orbit and would just add to the orbital debris issue.
If the velocity was such that the projectile could exit our orbit, it would probably be less risky.
There's an interesting excerpt from one of the Expanse books about how all the rounds they fire from their space ships are probably going to travel through space for millions of years before they actually hit something.
...if a human could theoretically survive it long enough to get thrown into space.
The answer is 'no'. This thing would spin all the blood out of your body, and then when it actually launches you, your body would get shattered by the shock, and then shattered again a millisecond later as your spacecraft plows into the atmosphere at a few mach number.
https://youtu.be/9ziGI0i9VbE?si=cm35bEGTpAIcAxkK
https://youtu.be/9ziGI0i9VbE?si=HngYX7MN-bFZ9ll_
I recommend watching those videos.
Yeah I was gonna say...
No, no it doesn't work.
Usually when a SpinLaunch article or video is posted, all the armchair Physic PhDs show up pontificating on why it's doomed to fail.
Well it's been almost ten years and they still aren't launching into space so I'd say they've been correct so far.
Everything is impossible, until it isn’t.
Being possible and being feasible aren't the same thing.
And some things never are. I don't think spin launch is doomed to failure, but there are definitely projects that some people take seriously that are legitimately never going to happen
Eh… eventually anything we are trying to do now short of things that would break natural laws will be possible at one point or another.
For instance, even though something crazy like the Theranos Edison is impossible with current and even near future tech, it’s going to be possible one day, which is a certainty.
You're dreaming of you think this is remotely feasible.
Strange that a bunch of aerospace and mechanical engineers believe it is, and have tested the math, yet some random person who probably doesn't even work on STEM believes they have the better idea.
I can't tell if you genuinely think you're smarter than these people or if this is just the classic "space craft are stupid!" Rhetoric that's become popular since Musk started SpaceX.
Strange that a bunch of aerospace and mechanical engineers believe it is
It's not that strange. There are lots of people willing to con others out of investment money.
who probably doesn't even work on STEM
You're wrong there
I can't tell if you genuinely think you're smarter than these people or if this is just the classic "space craft are stupid!" Rhetoric that's become popular since Musk started SpaceX.
I don't think I'm smarter than these people. I think I'm smarter than the people being conned by these people. Spacecraft certainly aren't stupid. A lot of what SpaceX has done in spite of Musk has been amazing to see. Their rocket engine development is some of the coolest stuff out there. It's too bad that the company is led by a con man who makes grandiose claims that they'll never live up to.
You don't need to be Stephen Hawkings to understand that the bottleneck is not in the launch sling but in the satellite themselves. The idea is in the same league as the space elevator; sure you can do it, but is it better than rockets?
this post was submitted on 13 Oct 2023
37 points (89.4% liked)
Videos
14256 readers
250 users here now
For sharing interesting videos from around the Web!
Rules
- Videos only
- Follow the global Mastodon.World rules and the Lemmy.World TOS while posting and commenting.
- Don't be a jerk
- No advertising
- No political videos, post those to !politicalvideos@lemmy.world instead.
- Avoid clickbait titles. (Tip: Use dearrow)
- Link directly to the video source and not for example an embedded video in an article or tracked sharing link.
- Duplicate posts may be removed
Note: bans may apply to both !videos@lemmy.world and !politicalvideos@lemmy.world
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS