4 ms·

Why do you think launching objects into space via kinetic energy is useless? It's actually quite brilliant and similar systems are now in use today[1]. 1. http

Why do you think launching objects into space via kinetic energy is useless? It's actually quite brilliant and similar systems are now in use today[1]. 1. https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/43079/space-launch-start-up-just-used-a-giant-centrifuge-to-hurl-a-projectile-into-the-upper-atmosphere https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/43079/space-launch-sta...

andrewflnr 4y ago
"In use" is quite a stretch for Spin Launch; to my knowledge they've only launched the one test. Also a centrifuge is not really similar to a gun.
Xylakant 4y ago
One major issue is that you need a considerable acceleration to achieve a velocity sufficient for orbit - and unlike a rocket, a space gun would need to achieve that on the ground. It would also need to achieve a very high speed for the object at almost ground level, in a dense atmosphere with high friction. Both would require a fairly sturdy payload, but you want space payloads to be comparatively delicate so you need to put less mass into orbit. A centrifuge at least deals with the first issue since the required acceleration is independent from the centrifuges size, you just make more rounds. Still need to deal with the centrifugal force, though.
- JimDabell 4y ago
  > Both would require a fairly sturdy payload, but you want space payloads to be comparatively delicate so you need to put less mass into orbit. Wouldn’t you get a big reduction in mass from not needing to bring enough fuel to get up there?
- forgotusername6 4y ago
  You could put the space gun at high altitude to start with to reduce the air resistance. With regards to being delicate, we already have rocket assisted guided artillery shells. These require complex electronic and can survive the high acceleration.
  - nix23 4y ago
    >space gun at high altitude Also called first stage of rockets ;) >we already have rocket assisted guided artillery shells. They don't have cooling/heating-systems, solar-panels no special instruments or optics no isolation AND they don't have to be lightweight, if you combine all that together, it gets so expensive creating such a satellite (and that every single time because of customization) it's probably cheaper just to buy/rent a rocket where you can (maybe) share the payload. I mean, even the vibration of a rocket can severely damage a satellite.
    - forgotusername6 4y ago
      The point of having the first stage fuel on the ground is you don't have to carry it up there. If you can design something to withstand the shock then it is worth doing. Unlikely to be suitable for all applications but there are likely some which fit.
      - nix23 4y ago
        >Unlikely to be suitable for all applications but there are likely some which fit. Yes artillery shells, that's what "Project Babylon" is about ;)
nix23 4y ago
It's as brilliant and a scam as Hyperloop. Balloons with a small launcher would be cheaper...but that's lame and not cool (marketing)....like normal trains instead of Hyper ;) Spinlaunch: BUSTED! 1+2 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9ziGI0i9VbE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9ziGI0i9VbE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ibSJ_yy96iE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ibSJ_yy96iE

andrewflnr 4y ago

"In use" is quite a stretch for Spin Launch; to my knowledge they've only launched the one test. Also a centrifuge is not really similar to a gun.

Xylakant 4y ago

One major issue is that you need a considerable acceleration to achieve a velocity sufficient for orbit - and unlike a rocket, a space gun would need to achieve that on the ground. It would also need to achieve a very high speed for the object at almost ground level, in a dense atmosphere with high friction. Both would require a fairly sturdy payload, but you want space payloads to be comparatively delicate so you need to put less mass into orbit. A centrifuge at least deals with the first issue since the required acceleration is independent from the centrifuges size, you just make more rounds. Still need to deal with the centrifugal force, though.

JimDabell 4y ago
> Both would require a fairly sturdy payload, but you want space payloads to be comparatively delicate so you need to put less mass into orbit. Wouldn’t you get a big reduction in mass from not needing to bring enough fuel to get up there?
forgotusername6 4y ago
You could put the space gun at high altitude to start with to reduce the air resistance. With regards to being delicate, we already have rocket assisted guided artillery shells. These require complex electronic and can survive the high acceleration.
- nix23 4y ago
  >space gun at high altitude Also called first stage of rockets ;) >we already have rocket assisted guided artillery shells. They don't have cooling/heating-systems, solar-panels no special instruments or optics no isolation AND they don't have to be lightweight, if you combine all that together, it gets so expensive creating such a satellite (and that every single time because of customization) it's probably cheaper just to buy/rent a rocket where you can (maybe) share the payload. I mean, even the vibration of a rocket can severely damage a satellite.
  - forgotusername6 4y ago
    The point of having the first stage fuel on the ground is you don't have to carry it up there. If you can design something to withstand the shock then it is worth doing. Unlikely to be suitable for all applications but there are likely some which fit.
    - nix23 4y ago
      >Unlikely to be suitable for all applications but there are likely some which fit. Yes artillery shells, that's what "Project Babylon" is about ;)

nix23 4y ago

It's as brilliant and a scam as Hyperloop. Balloons with a small launcher would be cheaper...but that's lame and not cool (marketing)....like normal trains instead of Hyper ;) Spinlaunch: BUSTED! 1+2 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9ziGI0i9VbE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9ziGI0i9VbE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ibSJ_yy96iE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ibSJ_yy96iE