I go suborbital everytime I hop off the steps on my front porch

Telling that no altitudes achieved are reported

Spin launch (and the closely related sligatron) are completely silly with no practical path to orbit.

If you don't get near orbital delta-V, then the upper stage still needs a good fraction of orbital delta-V AND needs to be strong (heavy) enough to survive 10,000 Gs

If you do go orbital (launching horizontally BTW) you end up way above 10,000Gs or with an absurdly large launcher.

Fun, but dumb. No idea how they got funded

30,000' but no details.

https://interestingengineering.com/inno ... sa-payload

SpinLaunch has revealed little in the way of concrete details about the test flight, though it did say it had a similar trajectory to its previous tests that flew to altitudes of 30,000 ft (9,150 m). Back in May, the company added an optical payload to its launch system to capture its test flights in first-person.

Having money does not necessarily endow one with sense.

Falcon 9 booster gets its "payload" to 8000 km/h, 65 km high (213,000 ft), less than 5 G, and it is fully reusable. This is about 200,000 lbs (second stage, fairings, adapter, actual payload).

The radical parameters of launch for the Spinlaunch system means payloads have to be designed especially for it. Those requirements are hostile to typical satellite construction since a satellite spends most of its life in zero G and has relatively delicate things attached to it. Any satellite made to survive the launch will be a lot heavier than it needed to be.

Spinlaunch has yet to show the really hard part, building a "second stage" rocket that will survive the "first stage" launch.

Fundamentally, the service is incompatible with the task.

This is a 100% certain failure.

Mike C.

They may not be sensible, I'm just surprised how many people willing to invest in something like this still have the money to invest.

The SpaceX approach is fine. Upper stage recovery will help their costs, but is quite tricky to do .

There is an argument for air-launch as well. If you start at high altitude, there is less air drag so you can build a much smaller orbital rocket and there is a chance you can save money with high volume. Relies on orbital-assembly for most applications.




Having money does not necessarily endow one with sense.

Falcon 9 booster gets its "payload" to 8000 km/h, 65 km high (213,000 ft), less than 5 G, and it is fully reusable. This is about 200,000 lbs (second stage, fairings, adapter, actual payload).

The radical parameters of launch for the Spinlaunch system means payloads have to be designed especially for it. Those requirements are hostile to typical satellite construction since a satellite spends most of its life in zero G and has relatively delicate things attached to it. Any satellite made to survive the launch will be a lot heavier than it needed to be.

Spinlaunch has yet to show the really hard part, building a "second stage" rocket that will survive the "first stage" launch.

Fundamentally, the service is incompatible with the task.

This is a 100% certain failure.

Mike C.

I saw one of their earlier launches and I think it's fantastic! Who cares how someone else spends their money. This is some real cutting-edge stuff and I'm sure the guys and gals doing it are really smart and interesting geeks. It would be a hoot to hang out there and watch this stuff. Good on them for getting paid to explore the boundaries of something new and exciting. They haven't killed anybody, that I know of, yet. Go Spinlaunch!

Mostly harmless. Probably won't hurt anybody wasting their money.

That said, the kinetic energy in the launch system is enormous. If they release the projectile at the wrong time, it will be alike an artillery shell (containing explosive chemicals, no less) screaming on an arc that could do very real damage.

A standard rocket has a flight termination system (FTS). The rocket can be destroyed before it goes so far off course and it threatens anyone. The Spinlaunch system really can't have that feature since the kinetic energy is imparted from the start. Maybe they can detonate the payload to fracture the flying mass, but that's about it.

Mike C.

>the kinetic energy in the launch system is enormous.

Yes it is. All the more reason to admire them IMO.

Cutting edge, scary, risky, exciting, rewarding. Go SpinLaunch is what I say.

Like Evil Knievel. Dangerous, dramatic, but ultimately of no practical value.

Mike C.

Fly Raptor, fly!

Its a super- cool gadget and I'd love to see it in operation. Just not a path to a practical launch vehicle.

Earlier testing....

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Rn8jBzsg9U