This Startup Got $40 Million to Build a Space Catapult

A new startup called SpinLaunch has managed to get $40M in backing from Alphabet and Airbus for a launch technology that uses a kinetic launch system to put small payloads into space. The launch system uses electricity to get the payload up to speed by spinning it until it reaches a high velocity and then releases it on its way to orbit. It plans to begin launch operations in 2022 and will charge less than $500K per launch and can launch multiple times per day. Payload capacity is unknown at this time, but this could be a huge breakthrough if it really works. More to come.

The idea of a rocket slingshot seems like science-fiction, and Yaney has nothing resembling the classic background for a rocket maker. Still, some experts in the field who have seen the prototype were impressed by Yaney and think the company has a fighting chance. One such believer is Simon “Pete” Worden, the former director of NASA’s Ames Research Center and a well-known expert in the aerospace field who’s unaffiliated with SpinLaunch.

First payload should be manned......Zuckerberg, Bezos and a couple others.

Could not read the article, it kept getting black boxes on top... What i could read sounds very cool, and i think it is very much possible.

Travolta said:

First payload should be manned......Zuckerberg, Bezos and a couple others.

Click to expand...

I didn't do the math, but unless this thing is HUGE the angular acceleration is probably more than a human can deal with.

Guess I should go read about it then come back and edit this. Better yet, read about the prototype first.

Nah.

Anyone have an idea if this would this put the payload under less or more G-forces than a traditional rocket launch?

DedEmbryonicCe11 said:

Anyone have an idea if this would this put the payload under less or more G-forces than a traditional rocket launch?

Click to expand...

Im thinking less? Acceleration can be slower.

Very cool way to do it, pretty sure Space-x also has a similar idea they are working on.

But all this makes me wonder how much is spent on research for manipulating or shielding of gravity waves.

Uvaman2 said:

Im thinking less? Acceleration can be slower.

Click to expand...

Sprint ABMs pulled over 130g in 1st stage acceleration and 90g+ in 2nd stage, in the 60s.
0 to Mach 10 in 6 seconds! A slightly larger version could be used for space launches also and probably not cost too much.

mord said:

I didn't do the math, but unless this thing is HUGE the angular acceleration is probably more than a human can deal with.

Guess I should go read about it then come back and edit this. Better yet, read about the prototype first.

Nah.

Click to expand...

What if they make the dumb projectiles accelerate gradually over time so that human payloads don't turn into squishy mush. It has to be possible, it's space!

astronauts will be braindead by the time they reach orbit

Building catapults to lay siege to the Moon I see... The Moonmen have no idea whats coming to them.

dgz said:

What if they make the dumb projectiles accelerate gradually over time so that human payloads don't turn into squishy mush. It has to be possible, it's space!

Click to expand...

That would reduce the linear acceleration, but if they are using a round track or arm, as the name seems to imply, you have an angular acceleration at any non 0 speed.

Like if you swing a ball on a string around. Even at a steady speed going around, there is a constant angular acceleration on the ball because the string keeps it from going straight. You still fell the pull on the string even when not trying to speed up the swing.

Given they mentioned a 5,000mph launch speed, that makes for some big angular acceleration unless the circle is really big.

Equipment can be built to handle that, squishy organics not so much.

5k mph is roughly a 5th of earth escape velocity. Even for Leo they will need a good bit more speed. So I assume they are launching a rocket that will ignite in air. That 5k starting speed should drop much of the propellant needed though. A big drop in size. Most of the peopellent in big rockets is to lift the weight of the proppelent. Wild guess between 1/2 and 2/3rds?

Can I attach one to my balloon to clear the other 60km to space when my balloon gets me 40k?

Ballooning is already tried and tested technology -- "It's the origin of space travel," explains Annelie Schoenmaker, external relations and legal officer for Zero2infinity, a Spanish company that plans to launch passengers to near space using balloons known as "Bloons" for €110,000 ($124,000) a time.
Zero2infinity is one of two organizations hoping to use pressurized capsules suspended beneath helium balloons as a way to take tourists into near space.

Click to expand...

https://www.cnn.com/2015/03/05/tech/balloons-fly-edge-of-space/index.html

Uvaman2 said:

Im thinking less? Acceleration can be slower.

Click to expand...

For, sure more. Think NASA's G" simulator (that spins astronauts till they pass out from G force load) only much bigger and faster. Even if you ramp it up slowly, it's the spinning that will create the G force, not the acceleration.

DedEmbryonicCe11 said:

Anyone have an idea if this would this put the payload under less or more G-forces than a traditional rocket launch?

Click to expand...

Satellites are generally designed for launch accelerations of up to 4g.

To pull that off, this thing's main loop is going to have to be about 150 miles across. That's about half as wide as an average US state. And they're going to have to buy up all the land along this perfectly-round route -- including substantial property on either side of it, because a rocket is still a bomb, and there will be a minimum-safe-distance. Let's be generous, and say it's only a half-mile on either side -- that's still about a thousand square miles they'll have to try to pull eminent-domain on.

This thing isn't getting off the ground.

I am thinking that this system looks like a giant Ferris Wheel with a Mag-Lev track in middle, and the payload spins around the outer perimeter till it hits the target speed and detaches from the launch system.

XenIneX said:

Satellites are generally designed for launch accelerations of up to 4g.

To pull that off, this thing's main loop is going to have to be about 150 miles across. That's about half as wide as an average US state. And they're going to have to buy up all the land along this perfectly-round route -- including substantial property on either side of it, because a rocket is still a bomb, and there will be a minimum-safe-distance. Let's be generous, and say it's only a half-mile on either side -- that's still about a thousand square miles they'll have to try to pull eminent-domain on.

This thing isn't getting off the ground.

Click to expand...

If the loop is round and is 150 miles across, that is 22,500 square miles, isn't it?

LazN said:

For, sure more. Think NASA's G" simulator (that spins astronauts till they pass out from G force load) only much bigger and faster. Even if you ramp it up slowly, it's the spinning that will create the G force, not the acceleration.

Click to expand...

Oh shit yeah like a centrifuge of course!

Zepher said:

If the loop is round and is 150 miles across, that is 22,500 square miles, isn't it?

Click to expand...

I'm only counting the 1-mile-wide band along which the loop would actually run. If they couldn't figure out how to grant access to the property in the middle, that would mean they'd literally have to buy up a quarter of a state. I'm thinking that's even less likely.

XenIneX said:

I'm only counting the 1-mile-wide band along which the loop would actually run. If they couldn't figure out how to grant access to the property in the middle, that would mean they'd literally have to buy up a quarter of a state. I'm thinking that's even less likely.

Click to expand...

build it under ground with a launch access hole.

I think they should just build the satellites on the ISS since it is already in space.
They could just open the door and toss it out.

Scott Manley did a video on this a few months ago and was somewhat skeptical, deemed it not impossible.

Also figured it could be used as a "first stage" in a multi-stage launch system.

Calculated launch acceleration for a 100m radius system would exceed 3600G just to hit 3000mph, plus an awesome sonic boom if at sea level.

Its easy to put stuff in space. Its a lot harder to put stuff in orbit. Which is this?

https://what-if.xkcd.com/58

Zepher said:

I think they should just build the satellites on the ISS since it is already in space.
They could just open the door and toss it out.

Click to expand...

It's not so much a size issue as it is a weight issue. If they build them in space, they still have to fly the materials up there, it's the same weight. The QC would be a problem because of working conditions, as satellites usually need very stringent assembly labs.

These guys are in for a law-suit. I had detailed plans for a space catapult on the back of my 5th grade math book that I bet they stole.

Some centripedal accelerations for various radii at speeds of 2200m/s using v^2/r (about 4921mph).
If you get a 40km long sling you will ONLY experience 10g's of acceleration at 5000mph.

Can't believe they got funding for this ridiculous idea. Unless the package is tiny like cube sat, the loop would have to big humongous. Additionally, not many parts can bear that angular stress. What's good about rockets is, one major force direction and a bunch of vibration.

XenIneX said:

Satellites are generally designed for launch accelerations of up to 4g.

To pull that off, this thing's main loop is going to have to be about 150 miles across. That's about half as wide as an average US state. And they're going to have to buy up all the land along this perfectly-round route -- including substantial property on either side of it, because a rocket is still a bomb, and there will be a minimum-safe-distance. Let's be generous, and say it's only a half-mile on either side -- that's still about a thousand square miles they'll have to try to pull eminent-domain on.

This thing isn't getting off the ground.

Click to expand...

Yeah, or they could redesign satellites for a new g target. This will not work for all satellites, but im sure there are some satellites you could redesign for much higher G loads. You can find various electronic components and design methods rated for 1000's of g's of acceleration. So maybe have a loop radius of 1km for a satellite rated to 1000g's.

some acceleration reading on stack exchange for electronics:
https://electronics.stackexchange.com/questions/102564/designing-for-high-acceleration

typical accelerations:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orders_of_magnitude_(acceleration)

Seems to me better engines need to be made. I have a feeling this will get picked up by the military and made into a weapon.

XenIneX said:

I'm only counting the 1-mile-wide band along which the loop would actually run. If they couldn't figure out how to grant access to the property in the middle, that would mean they'd literally have to buy up a quarter of a state. I'm thinking that's even less likely.

Click to expand...

But with this you are looking at a horizontal launch instead of a vertical launch, which would just send the payload through way more atmosphere to get into orbit which would slow it back down from drag. the circle would have to be upright like a ferris wheel, so only a mile or so wide but very high, to give a large spin diameter. You have to convert the angular velocity into linear velocity to achieve a launch, so the smaller the diameter of the spin circle the more rpm you have to hit to get the same linear velicity. If the circumference is 0.001 km and you spin at 1 rpm then your linear velocity is 0.001km/minute(.06km/hr) when released, if the circumference is 1.00km then at 1 rpm the linear velocity is 1.00km/min(60.00 km/hr) when released. The 1m(0.001km) circumference spin at 1 rpm gives a force of 0.00016g while the 1000m (1km) circumference spin will give 0.16g.

You need less rpm with larger diameter but you also get higher g loading as the diameter goes up. But you have to be able to release the object with enough linear velocity so a small diameter is going to have to spin way to fast, and the release point would have to be timed with so much more accuracy or the launch could be several km or even 100s of km off target with a simple millisecond error in release time.

How much noise would be generated once the rotating object breaks the sound barrier? If the release velocity is as low as 5000km/hr you are already at Mach 4, what does a Mach 4 object do when spinning in a circle either 1m in diameter or 1km in diameter? You will need to protect local buildings from the sound waves at a minimum, with local probably being a distance of several kilometers. Also how long will it take to spin up to the needed rpm to achieve the needed release velocity? It takes a lot of power over a short period of time to spin something like this up in a few seconds, to prevent a prolonged problem with the sound energy, but if you spin up slowly you have a lot of time between when the object reaches Mach 1 up until Mach 4 which leads to more damage done from the sound energy.

Where this would work the best, would be to launch objects from lunar orbit, where you don't have to worry about sound energy or wind drag causing problems. Probably ideal for returning mined materials from the Moon to Earth or sending probes from the Moon to the outer solar system.

Zepher said:

build it under ground with a launch access hole.

Click to expand...

So... ~500 miles of tunnel. At about 50 feet per day, that'll only take about... 130 years to bore out. Easy-peasy.

Zepher said:

I think they should just build the satellites on the ISS since it is already in space.
They could just open the door and toss it out.

Click to expand...

1. You still have to get your raw materials into space. And manufacturing wastes raw materials. Long story short, you'd end up lifting far more mass for no purpose.
2. There are no fabrication facilities of note on the ISS. And no manufacturing/assembly specialists.
3. The ISS is not in a particularly interesting or useful orbit for most purposes. You'd have to lift additional fuel for the sole purpose of doing a plane-change from the ass-end of nowhere to where they actually want to be.

serpretetsky said:

Yeah, or they could redesign satellites for a new g target. This will not work for all satellites, but im sure there are some satellites you could redesign for much higher G loads. You can find various electronic components and design methods rated for 1000's of g's of acceleration. So maybe have a loop radius of 1km for a satellite rated to 1000g's.

Click to expand...

Electronics do high G loads just fine. Lightweight structural elements, hinges, antennas, and solar panels do not. Worse, this is looking at high G on multiple axes -- 1000g lateral, and then at least 4g longitudinal. Launch service customers already get pissy about having to design for one lateral G for SpaceX's horizontal integration.

[REDACTED] And this thing would be a megastructure of ridiculous scale. Even if you consider 1000g lateral acceleration to be an acceptable design constraint for satellites, you're still looking at a main loop 10km in diameter -- on par with the Large Hadron Collider. The tunnel boring alone would be a billion-dollar project. That doesn't include building the launch system, or designing a rocket which can gracefully deal with 1000g of sustained lateral acceleration. [/REDACTED]

And they're planning to make back this massive investment half-a-million dollars -- minus costs -- at a time? When the kind of customers they're courting can already get ride-shares for less than that, and don't have to deal with their ridiculous high-G design constraints?

XenIneX said:

And this thing would be a megastructure of ridiculous scale. Even if you consider 1000g lateral acceleration to be an acceptable design constraint for satellites, you're still looking at a main loop 10km in diameter -- on par with the Large Hadron Collider. The tunnel boring alone would be a billion-dollar project. That doesn't include building the launch system, or designing a rocket which can gracefully deal with 1000g of sustained lateral acceleration.
?

Click to expand...

2km diameter . 640m radius already gets you under a 1000g's.

To everyone doing the calculations for huge g forces unless the loop is really large.... don't forget the loop has to be vertical, you can't spin around in a circle on the ground, yeah that will get you up to speed fine but you still need to go up, and unless it turns into a circular ramp that also has a radius of curvature of 40km you're going to spike those gees again.

Honestly Spaceship one has it right, with using a "mothership" (aka plane) to climb in altitude before firing off the thrusters of the smaller vessel to get it to kiss space.

serpretetsky said:

2km diameter . 640m radius already gets you under a 1000g's.

Click to expand...

Goddamnit... mixed up units in a lookup table. Actually less than half a kilometer diameter, which makes the infrastructure a lot less stupid.

I maintain, though, that this still places punishing constraints on potential customers, is a ridiculous design for use in-atmosphere, and I doubt the survivability of rockets placed under those kinds of forces.

So, into space, not into orbit. That's a given.

Is it an axel between two towers? How high? (That's important.) Is it dropped from an aircraft at high altitude and reels itself in to gain rotational speed? How is the pod attached and then released? How does this clamp work? At 2000m/s, drag would forbid any slack in a cable, so is it a fixed linkage? Or is it at least reeled in on a cable?

How many people are signed up for a short lob of a solid-state, black-box-like object into space at half a million dollars?

The article says something about a prototype being impressive, but come on... you can't scale up some whirly science fair project to handle a 100kg, 100km vertical "chuck" without some _very_ impressive fabrication and mechanical engineering. I'd like to see this materials simulation run once.

If this can be built and put stuff in orbit, it might be a cheap way to supply raw material for a 3-D printer on a Construction Station in LEO. Or supplies of water to be broken down into O2 and H2. Breath the O2 and find some use for H2 or simply vent it into space. Water doesn't need fancy cryo tanks for transport.

serpretetsky said:

Some centripedal accelerations for various radii at speeds of 2200m/s using v^2/r (about 4921mph).

Code:

radius(m)  acceleration(m^2/s) (divide this value by ~10 to get G's of acceleration)

10                   484000
40                   121000
160                   30250
640                    7562.5
2560                   1890.625
10240                   472.65625
40960                   118.1640625

If you get a 40km long sling you will ONLY experience 10g's of acceleration at 5000mph.

Click to expand...

Yes, exactly. A big problem with many of the posts on here are that people are assuming the ring lays flat on the earth. That has one HUGE issue. The velocity at any point for release is parallel to the earths surface. It needs to be perpendicular.

So a loop 40km tall? Or 40km deep in the ground? We are no where near the technology to do that. 2-3km, maybe and that would cost enough to buy 100s of chemical rockets.

Possible solution, build it at an angle. Into a mountain side, plateau, or rift valley? Faults are going to be much more of a concern with alignments then.