5 ms·
The frustrating thing is that the skepticism always centers on basic physics/engineering problems that clearly have been solved before such a design would break
by sjburt 4y ago
The frustrating thing is that the skepticism always centers on basic physics/engineering problems that clearly have been solved before such a design would break ground. Nobody builds a giant centrifuge and says "Oh I didn't expect such high g forces!"
The areas I'm skeptical about are whether customers will be able or willing to design for 10,000G loads, and what market remains once Starlink can bring 120,000 kg to LEO at once. that fits a lot of small satellite ride shares.
- WalterBright 4y agoI'm amazed that radar circuits (for proximity fuses) can be fired out of a flak gun and survive and work, so maybe this is possible.
- sjburt 4y agoThe US has had (for several decades) guided artillery shells, both optical and inertially guided. These get launched from battleship cannons and deploy fins to guide them to the target. The inertial guidance is almost more surprising, it means the IMU can not only survive being launched, but has enough sensitivity to double integrate accurately through both the launch and free fall.
- nsonha 4y ago> Nobody builds a giant centrifuge and says "Oh I didn't expect such high g forces!" Nobody build a satellite and expect such high g forces, they don't build satellite to accommodate to launch system, it's the other way around.
- imtringued 4y agoActually a lot of satellite engineering is based around reducing weight to lower launch costs.
- bagels 4y agoMaybe I misunderstood what you wrote, but satellites are built to accommodate launch systems. They have to tolerate the temperature, vibration and acceleration of the launch system, even if it is a rocket.
- Breza 4y agoI wonder if ICBMs will ultimately be a use case. I'm no fan of nuclear weapons, but the governments of the world are willing to throw money at them and weapons are generally easier to harden against g forces than an undergrad cubesat.