3 ms·
The article is a bit fluffy and the headline completely misleading. It's proposed to get things to orbit by launching them up decently high and fast where the d
by zamadatix 2y ago
The article is a bit fluffy and the headline completely misleading. It's proposed to get things to orbit by launching them up decently high and fast where the device then uses fuel to actually reach orbit.
Articles around SpinLaunch seem to be popping up lately which is a bit odd considering it's been ~2 years since they've done any testing and I've haven't seen any actual new announcements in these new articles yet.
- bunderbunder 2y agoThough, for what it's worth, replacing the first stage of a traditional rocket would still represent a dramatic reduction in fuel weight and perhaps also total launch costs. You're kindasorta doing the equivalent of replacing an entire Falcon 9 with a relatively lightweight sabot. Either way the initial boost puts the orbital vehicle on a suborbital trajectory, so it needs to carry its own engine for the orbital insertion burn.
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- zamadatix 2y agoAgreed, with one nit: Initially you say first stage and later you say entire Falcon 9. Both approaches retain the 2nd stage rocket for orbital burn (separate from whatever propulsion the payload may have) so it's more equivalent to proposing replacement of just the first stage of the Falcon 9.
- horsawlarway 2y agoI don't really agree that the title is misleading. I would fully expect the launched satellite to need its own engine and fuel (if nothing else, you'll need orbital corrections). This seems to replace the booster stage, which is still a pretty huge deal, and is also the largest expenditure of fuel. > Articles around SpinLaunch seem to be popping up lately which is a bit odd considering it's been ~2 years since they've done any testing and I've haven't seen any actual new announcements in these new articles yet. No argument here. Their website also seems to be about a year out of date (their "in the news" stops in late 2023).
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- zamadatix 2y agoIt does replace the booster stage but it the 2nd stage isn't the satellite with its orbital corrections boosters to fine tune things, it's a rocket which provides 75% of the delta-v. The booster stage replacement doesn't even (propose to) get the 2nd stage to the Karman line without fuel, much less something to orbit without fuel like the title reads. Replacing the booster stage is an interesting proposal, it's just not what the title conveys.
- rdtsc 2y agoThe could be looking to be bought out by someone like Boeing or such so starting making more press releases?
- sbuttgereit 2y agoYep. Maybe they're having a, "we're not dead yet!" PR push.
- rdtsc 2y agoThat's what I was thinking, "we're not dead yet, and please someone buy us".
- creatonez 2y agoIt's also strange because it's already well established that SpinLaunch is physically infeasible and borderline impossible to engineer, regardless of whether you have a 2nd stage. The article is written as if SpinLaunch has already been successfully tested for spaceflight, but it has not. No one should be promoting this scam.
- imtringued 2y agoYou can build a "spin launcher" on the moon. Vacuum is a non issue there. A much bigger problem is that SpinLaunch does not have a design that is viable for the moon, because an optimal tether launcher uses kilometer long tethers to achieve the same velocity at low g forces.