SpinLaunch: General Company and Development Updates and Discussions

[TrevorMonty]

Just out of curiosity, could a Spinlaunch type of system work on the moon? It would obviously have to be scaled down due to lower gravity and atmosphere, also power might be a problem.

The tip speeds they've already demonstrated would be more than enough to get to lunar orbital velocity, and IIRC, the max speeds they're shooting for are near or past lunar escape velocity. A sling tether like this would be a great way to do lunar launch: you only need a tiny dV for circularization to be provided via propellant, power can be input gradually over several hours so solar works fine, it can scale down pretty gracefully -- a 1ton to orbit system could land on a single Xeus-class lander. Personally it's my favorite propellantless launch system for the moon. Anyone serious about lunar ISRU should be considering something like this as part of their architecture.

~Jon

ULA were budgeting 1t fuel to delivery 1t to EML1. Producing that 1t of launch fuel on surface is very power hungry with lot energy wasted as heat. Spinlaunch could deliver that 1t to EML1 for lot less energy and fuel. Once in orbit a simple water fuelled thruster (eg Bradford's Comet) would be enough to get it to EML1. Returning tanker back to surface would still require LH LOX for lander. This can be produced at EML1 where solar power is lot more abundant and cheaper.


Changes economics of lunar fuel/water production when most of what is produced can be delivered to EML1.

[LouScheffer]

[...] Spinlaunch could deliver that 1t to EML1 for lot less energy and fuel. Once in orbit a simple water fuelled thruster (eg Bradford's Comet) would be enough to get it to EML1. Returning tanker back to surface would still require LH LOX for lander.

There is no reason (in theory) that you could not do SpinLand, and hence require no fuel for landing.  Come bombing in, latch onto the spinning rotor, get slowed to a stop, and with regenerative braking, save the energy for the next launch. 

This would require extreme accuracy and timing, but you are working in a vacuum where flight should be completely predictable.
You'd want a vertical spinner, with docking at the top of the rotation, and a trajectory tangent to the surface so a missed docking is not catastrophic.

[edzieba]

[...] Spinlaunch could deliver that 1t to EML1 for lot less energy and fuel. Once in orbit a simple water fuelled thruster (eg Bradford's Comet) would be enough to get it to EML1. Returning tanker back to surface would still require LH LOX for lander.

There is no reason (in theory) that you could not do SpinLand, and hence require no fuel for landing.  Come bombing in, latch onto the spinning rotor, get slowed to a stop, and with regenerative braking, save the energy for the next launch. 

This would require extreme accuracy and timing, but you are working in a vacuum where flight should be completely predictable.
You'd want a vertical spinner, with docking at the top of the rotation, and a trajectory tangent to the surface so a missed docking is not catastrophic.

A rotary launcher can eject a projectile in one direction and a counterweight in the opposite direction in order to balance forces on the rotating arm. A rotary catcher cannot do the same without installing an auxiliary 'counterweight accelerator' to get the counterweight going in the opposite direction at the right time. And if you have that, you may as well skip the spinamajig and just catch your projectile with that instead.

[LouScheffer]

[...] Spinlaunch could deliver that 1t to EML1 for lot less energy and fuel. Once in orbit a simple water fuelled thruster (eg Bradford's Comet) would be enough to get it to EML1. Returning tanker back to surface would still require LH LOX for lander.

There is no reason (in theory) that you could not do SpinLand, and hence require no fuel for landing.  Come bombing in, latch onto the spinning rotor, get slowed to a stop, and with regenerative braking, save the energy for the next launch. 

This would require extreme accuracy and timing, but you are working in a vacuum where flight should be completely predictable.
You'd want a vertical spinner, with docking at the top of the rotation, and a trajectory tangent to the surface so a missed docking is not catastrophic.

A rotary launcher can eject a projectile in one direction and a counterweight in the opposite direction in order to balance forces on the rotating arm. A rotary catcher cannot do the same without installing an auxiliary 'counterweight accelerator' to get the counterweight going in the opposite direction at the right time. And if you have that, you may as well skip the spinamajig and just catch your projectile with that instead.

A SpinLand system might not need removable counterweights at all.  Just launch an equivalent mass as you land the incoming one.  The outgoing mass could be a useful payload or a dummy.  In the dummy case you'd want a way to slow or deflect it right after launch, so it does not just go around and smack you in the back of the head.

[Robotbeat]

I tried simulating this in Kerbal Space Program. Still working on it. Hard to get the timing right when spinning fast enough to be worthwhile (may use a slow-time mod to help).

[jstrotha0975]

Didn't see this posted anywhere. SpinLaunch gets first military contract.

The secretive startup SpinLaunch, which aims to fling satellites into space without a traditional launch pad, has just secured its first launch contract.

In a statement today (June 19), SpinLaunch announced that it has received a "launch prototype contract" from the U.S. Department of Defense under a deal arranged by the Defense Innovation Unit. The Long Beach, California-based company aims to launch its first test flights in early 2020 from Spaceport America in New Mexico.

https://www.space.com/spinlaunch-first-launch-contract.html Dated June19, 2019

[Danderman]

Just out of curiosity, could a Spinlaunch type of system work on the moon? It would obviously have to be scaled down due to lower gravity and atmosphere, also power might be a problem.

A helicopter rotor could, in theory, send payloads into lunar orbit from the surface. Of course, after one orbit, the payload would return to the lunar surface.

[Asteroza]

Just out of curiosity, could a Spinlaunch type of system work on the moon? It would obviously have to be scaled down due to lower gravity and atmosphere, also power might be a problem.

A helicopter rotor could, in theory, send payloads into lunar orbit from the surface. Of course, after one orbit, the payload would return to the lunar surface.

yes, you need something like the often quoted O'neill mass catcher type system to grab payloads launched via surface accelerator systems.

[jongoff]

Just out of curiosity, could a Spinlaunch type of system work on the moon? It would obviously have to be scaled down due to lower gravity and atmosphere, also power might be a problem.

A helicopter rotor could, in theory, send payloads into lunar orbit from the surface. Of course, after one orbit, the payload would return to the lunar surface.

yes, you need something like the often quoted O'neill mass catcher type system to grab payloads launched via surface accelerator systems.

Or a small boost motor to supply the required circularization dV (50-100m/s). The container and boost motor could be recycled and reused.

~Jon

[abaddon]

SpinLaunch raises 35 million: https://spacenews.com/spinlaunch-raises-35-million/

[john smith 19]

SpinLaunch raises 35 million: https://spacenews.com/spinlaunch-raises-35-million/

From the article.

included Airbus Ventures, the venture capital arm of aerospace company Airbus. Other investors include venture capital funds GV, KPCB, Catapult Ventures and Lauder Partners, as well as John Doerr and Byers Family.

Spinlaunch is starting to look a lot like the Kistler K1 of the 2020's. 

What's been released about the concept does not square with its claimed abilities.

3 options can explain such investor behavior

1) Spinlaunch have found ways to deal with the massive g forces on launch (which is in the "breakthrough physics" category)
2) Spinlaunch's actual launch concept is nothing like what has been reported
3) The investors due diligence was quite poor.

[su27k]

Great news, I can't wait to see what they unveil later this year 

BTW, the diversity of US small launchers is something to be marveled at, instead of a bunch of cookiecutter me-too copycats, we have Firefly which is conventional, then Virgin airlaunch, then Relativity 3-d printing, now this.

[TrevorMonty]

SpinLaunch raises 35 million: https://spacenews.com/spinlaunch-raises-35-million/

From the article.

included Airbus Ventures, the venture capital arm of aerospace company Airbus. Other investors include venture capital funds GV, KPCB, Catapult Ventures and Lauder Partners, as well as John Doerr and Byers Family.

Spinlaunch is starting to look a lot like the Kistler K1 of the 2020's. 

What's been released about the concept does not square with its claimed abilities.

3 options can explain such investor behavior

1) Spinlaunch have found ways to deal with the massive g forces on launch (which is in the "breakthrough physics" category)
2) Spinlaunch's actual launch concept is nothing like what has been reported
3) The investors due diligence was quite poor.

While I'm sceptical, doubt Airbus would invest without doing their homework.

[QuantumG]

Founder: ... and that's how I plan to build a giant cannon

Investor: ummm... won't we get attacked by Israel or something?

Founder: No no, we'll do it in the US.

Investor: Ohhhh! But now I'm gunna look like a warmonger.

Founder: We'll say it's for space launch.

Investor: Oh come off it! No-one is going to believe this is for space launch.

Founder: Yeah, they will.

[ChrisWilson68]

SpinLaunch raises 35 million: https://spacenews.com/spinlaunch-raises-35-million/

From the article.

included Airbus Ventures, the venture capital arm of aerospace company Airbus. Other investors include venture capital funds GV, KPCB, Catapult Ventures and Lauder Partners, as well as John Doerr and Byers Family.

Spinlaunch is starting to look a lot like the Kistler K1 of the 2020's.  :(

What's been released about the concept does not square with its claimed abilities.

3 options can explain such investor behavior

1) Spinlaunch have found ways to deal with the massive g forces on launch (which is in the "breakthrough physics" category)
2) Spinlaunch's actual launch concept is nothing like what has been reported
3) The investors due diligence was quite poor.

While I'm sceptical, doubt Airbus would invest without doing their homework.

Whether the company being invested in will actually be successful is not necessarily the only factor for a company like Airbus.

Airbus is a very political company.  There are a lot of non-technical groups they want to make happy with them.  Among their goals is to be seen as being forward-thinking and innovative.  Having a portfolio of investments in wacky new ideas can help Airbus appease some of those groups.

[edzieba]

1) Spinlaunch have found ways to deal with the massive g forces on launch (which is in the "breakthrough physics" category)

Of all the potential issues Spinlaunch have, g-load on the launch vehicle is near the bottom of the list. The Excalbur projectile for example has a design acceleration north of 16,000g, and this is with standard SMD parts correctly oriented (i.e. not 'eyeballs in') rather than some exotic assembly. Similar projectiles that undergo similar loads contain solid propellant grains for base-bleed and even rocket-assist. Along with power and telemetry for active guidance, this demonstrates all the capabilities needed for a centrifugally launched vehicle other than scale.
It's not quite off-the-shelf (unless you have access to some very exiting shelves) but it's very far from requiring breakthrough physics.

[gmbnz]

Of all the potential issues Spinlaunch have, g-load on the launch vehicle is near the bottom of the list.

It may be the case that parts can be designed to handle that - but there's a difference between designing a projectile and a satellite; everything from folding PV arrays / antennas through to the COTS satellite components would have to be redesigned, or at least re-tested - there's certainly no way that current satellites would handle the g-forces.

[ChrisWilson68]

Of all the potential issues Spinlaunch have, g-load on the launch vehicle is near the bottom of the list.

It may be the case that parts can be designed to handle that - but there's a difference between designing a projectile and a satellite; everything from folding PV arrays / antennas through to the COTS satellite components would have to be redesigned, or at least re-tested - there's certainly no way that current satellites would handle the g-forces.

I think their intended market is bulk commodities, such as propellant and consumables for humans.

My understanding is that they don't intend the spin launch to get a payload up to orbital speed or even close to it.  That is not feasible because of the atmospheric resistance.

Instead, they intend this as a sort of first stage.  The problem I have is that I think their second stage will be very expensive because it has to handle all the g forces (not nearly as much as for an orbital spin launch, but still a lot) and all the aerodynamic forces and still provide quite a bit of delta-V.  I think they'll be able to make it work, but it will just be too expensive.

[john smith 19]

Founder: ... and that's how I plan to build a giant cannon

Investor: ummm... won't we get attacked by Israel or something?

Founder: No no, we'll do it in the US.

Investor: Ohhhh! But now I'm gunna look like a warmonger.

Founder: We'll say it's for space launch.

Investor: Oh come off it! No-one is going to believe this is for space launch.

Founder: Yeah, they will.

Indeed. This works out pretty well.

The DoD has been looking at ways  to do "Prompt global strike" for years. It's exactly within DARPA's remit.

It's not cheap, but it is acceptable for a weapon system.

[Bananas_on_Mars]

Of all the potential issues Spinlaunch have, g-load on the launch vehicle is near the bottom of the list.

It may be the case that parts can be designed to handle that - but there's a difference between designing a projectile and a satellite; everything from folding PV arrays / antennas through to the COTS satellite components would have to be redesigned, or at least re-tested - there's certainly no way that current satellites would handle the g-forces.

Immerse your electronics in liquid carbon dioxide. The density of that should be a good fit for the average density of a lot of components. Suddenly G-forces seem a lot less frightening. After launch use the carbon dioxide with cold gas thrusters for your circularisation "burn". Clean carbon dioxide should not contaminate, and the highest density is 1101 kg/m³ at only -37 degrees celsius at only a few bars of pressure.