Spin Launch SpinLaunch Vacuum Launches Centrifuge Launched Mass

tahanson43206 · 2023-09-03 14:13:47

GW Johnson asked me to post this video...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=csFyhYSLwic

This is a very recent update on the Spin Launch system.

Other items from the email:

Their sling rig is a vertically-oriented disk-shaped pressure vessel with one tangential outlet pipe vertically upward. That pipe has a pressure door that is open during a run. The vacuum is maintained by a membrane that the projectile bursts through. There is no timing except for release vertically upward, and that is critical. The arm is balanced for the loaded projectile. There is a big electric motor at the hub with its shaft through a shaft seal that spins the arm (I believe I heard) at 1200 rpm. It's a big arm. The attached jpg photo is from the CBS News video story about this , 0:8:16 long, titled "New Tech Puts A New Spin On Space Travel", dated 2 Sept 2023. The reporter was Jeff Glor. It's in their "technology" section. If there was some sort of link, I am not able to find it.
GW

(th)

GW Johnson · 2023-09-04 09:37:55

I watched the story again and verified the 1200 rpm value. The story gave an approximate "muzzle velocity" of 5000 mph vertically upward, with an apogee altitude "somewhat over 40 miles", presumed to be statute miles (the 5280-foot miles).

Compare that with the conditions for Spaceship Two, Mach 3 (about 2000 mph) at about 45-50,000 feet, apogeeing just above 50 statute miles. The different is the extra drag lower in the atmosphere at the sharply higher speed, and the effects of about 45-50,000 feet worth of extra potential energy to overcome from the surface launch.

1200 rpm is 20 revs per second, which is 125.7 radians per second. Judging from the photography, the radius arm is roughly 75 feet long. Tip speed would be radius x rad/s = 9428 ft/sec = 6428 mph. Not too far off. Using 5000 mph = 7333 ft/sec, and 125.7 rad/sec, the arm radius is 58 feet. Just for giggles, call it 60 feet = 18.3 m.

Now, centrifugal acceleration value is radius x (rad/sec)^2. So at 60 feet and 1200 rpm, the acceleration is 60 feet * (125.7 rad/sec)^2 = 948,000 ft/sec^2 = about 29,500 standard gees.

The payload must be VERY hard to withstand that!

Using approximate high school physics kinematics, at 5000 mph vertical launch, the average velocity (zero at apogee by definition) is 2500 mph. Distance divided by velocity is an estimate of time to apogee from launch = 0.016 hour = 57 seconds. I thought I heard the story say "30-some seconds". That's not as close as I would like to see it.

But it is in the ballpark.

GW

Last edited by GW Johnson (2023-09-04 09:41:02)

tahanson43206 · 2023-09-04 11:10:27

For GW Johnson re #27

Thank you for your analysis of the Spin Launch concept and reported performance.

This is just a guess on my part, but the rate of reduction of velocity ** may ** NOT be linear over the course of the ascent, which may account for the 30 second figure reported in the article. The rate of reduction of velocity due to drag would (presumably) diminish as the projectile ascends. Reduction in the force of gravity is also going on, but I am guessing that amount of reduction over a mere 40 miles is insignificant.

There are two possibilities (from my perspective).... the figures reported by the reporter may be fudge figures provided by the company, or they may be correct.

Is it possible to take the altitude and the time as correct, and work backward from there?

To achieve the 30 second time, it seems to me (based upon your analysis) that the launch velocity must be greater than 5000 mph.

Air drag would reduce the launch velocity in combination with the pull of gravity, but the rate of loss would NOT be linear. On the other hand, I would imagine there are figures on drag of the atmosphere at various altitudes accumulated over a century or more of flight, so perhaps there is a way to estimate the drag at various altitudes with some accuracy.

In any case, if you are inspired to tackle another round of analysis, the results ** should ** be interesting!

We have a limited supply of aerospace engineers in this forum, but we certainly can add more. See the Recruiting Topic if you are a visiting reader of the forum, and would like to assist with this topic (or any serious topic).

(th)

Calliban · 2023-10-02 08:33:34

A compact spinlaunch device could be very useful for exporting bulk ores from the surface of the moon for use in space manufacturing. The escape velocity of the moon is 2380m/s. A spin launcher with an arm radius of 1m, would need to achieve 22,727 revs in order to reach that linear speed. We have gas turbine engines that operate in that range, suggesting that this would be an achievable near term option.

The exported lunar material would need to be either housed in a robust container to withstand the force of acceleration, or sintered in solid slugs. A magazine system woukd be needed to load the slugs into the rotating machine.

The advantage this has over a conventional mass driver is relative compactness. A mass driver is usually expected to be hundreds of metres long. The spin launcher can be driven by a frequency controlled AC motor. At these speeds, I think gearing would be impractical. Some sort of vacuum rated lubricant would be needed to lubricate and cool the bearings. I think lead can be ruled out for this application.

Last edited by Calliban (2023-10-02 08:49:56)

tahanson43206 · 2023-10-02 10:26:40

For Calliban re #29

It is good to see your post on adapting SpinLaunch to the Moon.

If you have time, and the question is of interest, please perform a similar analysis for Mars.

It seems to me that shipments of propellant to Phobos would be most welcome, for both arriving vessels, departing ones, and ferries plying the Phobos/Mars trade.

***
Regarding bearings. I suspect you have not yet had time to study the working SpinLaunch facility. The bearings are safely enclosed, and I would expect the company will use the same enclosure on the Moon and Mars, and where-ever else similar facilities are needed.

There is a question of IP protection. It is possible that SpinLaunch did not think to protect their IP for use off planet. That would be an oversight, so I'll write to them to ask.

It would be far easier to license their technology for a company that ships product from the Moon and Mars, than to develop a system from scratch.

I'll report correspondence, if any.

(th)

tahanson43206 · 2023-10-02 10:34:11

This is a follow up to the previous post to Calliban:

I serve as a (Junior) moderator for the NewMars.com forum of the Mars Society. A member has inquired about the suitability of your system for use on the Moon or Mars. His analysis supports the conclusion that your system is superior to linear launch systems for regolith or refined product. My concern is that you may not have included off-Earth protection in your legal coverage for your IP. Please reply with the specific language in your patent claims that covers off-Earth use. This would be the starting point for an inquiry about licensing. Thanks tahanson43206

(th)

Mars_B4_Moon · 2023-11-01 04:09:47

SpinLaunch announces new leadership roles

https://www.spacedaily.com/reports/Spin … s_999.html

SpaceNut · 2024-01-26 17:17:26

This Revolutionary Launch System Sends Satellites Into Orbit Using Electricity

BB1h370f.img?w=768&h=431&m=6

tahanson43206 · 2024-01-26 18:24:55

For SpaceNut re #33

Thanks for the image, and for the link to the article about SpinLaunch...

The article has a link to the original article: here is the credit:

BY DAVID ROSSIAKY/JAN. 21, 2024 10:15 PM EST

The article includes a nice reprise of the project HARP research, many years ago.

(th)

tahanson43206 · 2024-04-03 11:19:59

In another topic, Void has introduced the idea of using the spin launch concept to give humans the velocity needed to perform space flight maneuvers.

I am approaching this idea with the expectation it has merit.

Over the years, I have observed that ideas presented by Void often are the nucleus of systems that can perform useful service.

The outstanding example is Void's imagining of a space craft dropping off material to be landed on Mars, before executing the retrorocket procedure to land the space craft itself.

This idea evolved into what looks like a practical business plan for competitive shipping of materials that can withstand high G forces.

There are many materials that can survive momentary high G forces, so the chances an industry will develop around this theme seem high to me.

This post is about the opposite idea ... launching objects, (and especially humans) for space travel, using rotation as the source of velocity.

It seems to me quite practical to consider using this technology for travel between space craft, or between a space craft and a space station.

The alternative is to expend precious mass to accelerate the object (or the human) at each end.

We have an opportunity for our members who are gifted with math and engineering skills to tackle the idea Void has offered, and see what can be done with it.

(th)

Void · 2024-04-03 11:33:14

I am glad that you have an interest in this.

The Spin launch notion can be divided into two categories that I am currently aware of:
1) Spin Unhook Launch (This is like what is done with the concept we are aware of).
2) Spin Slide Launch

#1 may be most suitable for non-human payloads.
#2 may be suitable for human launches.

For #2, imagine that a flywheel device consisting or a power plant, has developed spin inertia that can be tapped.
Now your ship lands at the hub of the spin and begins to launch down a slide track. As it moves outward to greater circumferences of spin, the ship is given inertia from the spinning launch platform. If the timing is correct the ship can be flung to a higher or lower orbit than the platform has.

The spin release could be additive to the orbit of the platform, or subtractive to the spin of the platform.

So, far I have considered that electric rocket propulsion would impart the spin energy on the spin platform.

By the way I have seen the spin-slide concept in someone's patent. That's a good thing as the idea may be valid for some situations of needs and desires in space.

While nuclear is possible as the power plant, solar may be well suited to power the spinning platform. One thing not liked about using solar with electric rockets to go to Mars, is the inertia of the power plant, and the fact that the sunlight diminishes as you travel away from the sun.

But with this the solar power plant stays near Earth, in the case that Earth is the place of departure, and its weight becomes an advantage as the inertia of the spinning solar panels, is part of a flywheel. Then if you release the load, the solar panels stay in an Earth orbit.

The slide action may reduce the amount of g forces experienced inside the ship, I don't have good calculations for that, as there can be so many instances of types of structure for spin launch platforms. It is silly to try yet. You might make a crude estimate to sort of start to understand what a practical spin platform might be like.

My current understanding for the tolerable g force for humans might be at about 4g for a launch situation. I think trained and exceptional people might tolerate up to 10g for a short duration of time.

But perhaps that needs corrections.

Done

It is possible that some type of simultaneous propulsion method might be added to this. For instance, a mechanical catapult that would start the ship away from the hub and down the slide track. Even a mass driver, system but I think that would be complex, probably more complicated than might be desired. We might look into a "Sling" process.

Sling: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sling_(weapon)

Catapult: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catapult

Onager: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Onager_(weapon)
Quote:

The onager (British /ˈɒnədʒə/, /ˈɒnəɡə/, U.S. /ˈɑnədʒər/)[1] was a Roman torsion powered siege engine. It is commonly depicted as a catapult with a bowl, bucket, or sling at the end of its throwing arm.

Done

Last edited by Void (2024-04-03 11:54:19)

GW Johnson · 2024-04-03 16:06:16

If I understand what you mean by spin-slide, there are radial accelerations that are calculated as a = R w^2, where w is the spin rate, and there are Coriolis accelerations that I don't remember how to calculate, but which do depend in part on the product of speed V and spin rate w. The Coriolis accelerations are parallel to the periphery, or perpendicular to the radial. Both exist at the same time, and add vectorially.

Be aware that the human body starts coming apart when subjected to just about 40-45 gees of acceleration. Posture and support do not mitigate that limit. It is why many fighter pilots say that using an ejection seat (at 30-40 gees) is committing suicide to keep from getting killed.

I rather doubt that there is a solution space for rw^2 and Vw under 40 gees, with the tip velocity V = Rw being of orbital class, unless R is thousands of km. Therefore, I don't believe there will ever be any kind of spin launch for humans.

GW

Void · 2024-04-03 21:01:34

Your advice is valuable.

This that I spoke of is not to launch from the Earth, but rather to be in orbit of a world already, and so then it is only a booster for a ship.
Granted it could be used for human occupied craft, I included that potential, but as you have indicated it might really do well to push loads at extreme g forces.

It is to be spun up with electric rocket propulsion for instance. Then a load may be put onto the rotational hub, and then a pusher or catapult can start it down the slide.

I know that the previous device mentioned was to launch loads from Earth, but that is not what this would be.

Done

tahanson43206 · 2024-06-15 14:56:58

Here is a link to an article written for the general public about the Spin Launch concept.

https://www.yahoo.com/tech/rocket-compa … 00267.html

The G force reported is on the order of 10,000.

The reporter does not appear to have much understanding of the technology. Each 400 pound payload package is going to have to include a solid fuel rocket to circularize the ellipse after launch. The reporter went on and one about how much carbon would be saved, so I assume he must have been talking to a media rep for the company.

The carbon released into the atmosphere will be less that would be required with a normal rocket launch, but it won't be zero.

This is essentially the same concept as that of Dr. John Hunter, who proposed a large hydrogen gas gun able to provide the first stage impulse for a payload package with a solid fuel rocket to circularize the orbit.

If you have time for an upbeat marketing report on the status of Spin Launch, you can find it at the link above.

(th)

GW Johnson · 2024-06-16 13:53:08

There is no ellipse circularization. The trajectory is straight up to an apogee at no velocity in any direction. The rocket has to take the dead-head payload to 7.91 km/s from 0 km/s, starting from that apogee.

GW

tahanson43206 · 2024-06-18 06:31:27

For GW Johnson re #40

Post #40 appears to have been composed when the author was in a grumpy mood.

As a (hopefully gentle) reminder, the author's own course material emphasizes that ** all ** flight of an object about the Earth is on an ellipse, with the Earth at one focus.

The spinlaunch machine can point in whatever direction is most advantageous for the customer. In the case of the McGregor Space Systems Fuel Depot that I am hoping we will see in a few years, we can predict with precision exactly what angle of launch is optimum.

The flight has to pass through the atmosphere, so the duration of that flight is a consideration due to the effects of drag.

On the other hand, launching toward the East while the Earth is rotating underneath will provide a small horizontal component to the flight path.

The 400 pound payload package has to include a solid rocket to propel the package to orbital velocity.

The net payload may be on the order of 50 pounds. It remains to be seen.

However, it should be possible for a NewMars member with the right skills to compute the design of the payload package that will deliver the maximum possible payload to the fuel depot with each shot.

A consideration is that the orbital plane of the fuel depot passes over the launcher only twice a day, and the launcher must launch within a very short window.

Since thousands of tons of propellant must be delivered to the depot, and since each payload package can only deliver (on the order of) 50 pounds, it is necessary to build many launchers at multiple locations to deliver payload to the fuel depot as the orbital plane sweeps over each launcher.

The reason I am using pounds is that my recollection is that the most recent article linked here in the forum quoted 400 pounds as the mass of the payload package.

(th)

tahanson43206 · 2024-06-18 06:33:56

The payload pods used by the Spinlaunch system can be (and must be) reusable. The payload pods can be collected at the fuel depot and returned in lots of 100 or more in a SpaceX Starship, which (it is hoped) will be able to return to Earth from LEO carrying useful payload.

(th)

GW Johnson · 2024-06-18 14:59:32

Technically, the path is a very eccentric ellipse in space, yes, but from an observer on the ground it looks like a straight line up, and right back down. At apogee, there is no relative velocity in any direction, as viewed from the launch site on the ground. Spin launch has everything to do with reaching an altitude outside the atmosphere. It has nothing to do with having any speed in any direction, when you get there. That is why the plan for spin launch is a small payload and a small two-stage solid rocket, riding inside the carrier device that you spin up and fling upward. Literally all of the speed to go anywhere in space comes from the rocket that you carry up there with your payload.

GW

tahanson43206 · 2024-06-18 16:03:07

For GW Johnson re #43

Thank you for the hint that Spinlaunch is planning a two stage solid rocket package to reach LEO.

I'd be interested in seeing a description of their plans, if you have a link available.

The Internet search was cluttered with results that had nothing to do with the inquiry.

A 400 pound projectile would have to include hardened electronics and two solid rocket subsystems, as well as the payload compartment. That is a remarkable bit of engineering.

(th)

GW Johnson · 2024-06-18 18:30:40

I saw it on their site some time ago.

As for hardening against launch gees, you are looking at something in the 5,000-10,000 gee range. It can be done; naval 5-inch-54 shells launch at about 20,000 gees.

GW

tahanson43206 · 2024-06-18 19:57:00

For GW Johnson re #45

Thanks for the tip to look on the Spinlaunch web site.

Thanks too, for your observations about G forces that must be survived by the electronics in the payload package...

10,000 G's is the reported test value for the launcher in it's current configuration, so your observation about naval guns is interesting and relevant.

The two stage solution for the payload package sounds (to me at least) like an attempt to wring the maximum possible performance out of the system.

The payload packet is not likely to have much ability to navigate after reaching LEO, so the retrieval tub seems necessary, as we have discussed previously.

(th)

GW Johnson · 2024-06-19 16:12:42

Tom:

I have actually designed solid rocket propellant grain designs able to survive 20,000 gees. These were for ICBM fly-along decoy applications. Such were tested in a shock tube facility at orbital speeds.

GW

tahanson43206 · 2024-06-19 19:23:17

For GW re #47

Your post inspires a bold opportunity....

I'm going with media reported mass of 400 pounds for the spinlaunch system.
I'm going with your report of two solid propellant burns to put the payload into LEO.

Given the altitude you've chosen for the McGregor Orbital Refueling depot (which I seem to recall was 150 km) please design a complete package that will launch from the surface and match orbit with the station.

The goal of the exercise is to maximize payload, while reusing everything that can be reused.

The fuel delivery packages are going to be launched by the hundreds, because they are so small, but the cost per kg should be competitive with other methods of placing fuel at the depot.

I decided to try to improve the numbers...

I asked Google, and the results suggest the reporters don't know the difference between a "payload" and a delivery vehicle.

Search Labs | AI Overview
Learn more
…
SpinLaunch's Suborbital Mass Accelerator (SMA) at Spaceport America in New Mexico can spin payloads up to 10,000 g before releasing them into space. The payloads can weigh between 20–200 kg (40–441 lb), and SpinLaunch's payload capacity is expected to be between 200–400 kg.
SpaceRef
SpinLaunch Looks to Electrify Satellite Launches - SpaceRef
Jun 12, 2023 — SpinLaunch is aiming to launch satellites weighing between 20 kg (40 lb) and 200 kg (441 lb). The ...
newspaceeconomy.ca
SpinLaunch: Company Profile - New Space Economy
Feb 12, 2024 — The payload capacity is expected to be between 200 – 400 kg. Each launch is forecast to be priced at less than $500,000. This represents between $1250 – $2500 per kg. SpaceX Falcon 9 currently charges $6000 per kg and minimum price per launch of $300,000 per 50 kg payload.
Universe Today
SpinLaunch Completes its 10th Test, Hurling Payloads for NASA ...
Oct 12, 2022 — Another Successful Launch The company's 12-meter (39.37 ft) Suborbital Mass Accelerator (SMA), located at Spaceport America in New Mexico, operates on a pretty straightforward principle. The accelerator spins payloads up to 10,000 g and then releases them from its launch tube towards space.
Generative AI is experimental.
Show more
a space catapult) that can propel payloads of up to 200 kg (440 lbs) to space. On September 27th, 2022, SpinLaunch announced the results of its tenth successful flight test of its Suborbital Mass Accelerator (SMA) at Spaceport America, New Mexico.Oct 12, 2022

I ** think ** the package is 200 kg, and the payload is some small fraction of that.

However, some of the snippets seems to show evidence that satellites can range from 20 kg to 200 kg.

In any case, NONE of the spinlaunch tests so far have achieved LEO.

The majority of comments about spinlaunch seem to be quite enthusiastically negative.

I think that trying to put satellites into orbit is the wrong direction to be looking, but I suppose there might be a market opportunity.

The market I see is raw materials (like fuel) boosted from Earth at prices that are at least 10% better than the competition.

The launch velocity I found for the test vehicle is 5000 miles per hour.

Let's go with the 200 kg media report, and the 5000 mph velocity.

With those two figures, plus the 150 km depot, is it possible to design a vehicle that can deliver fuel to the depot, and what amount of fuel can be delivered with currently existing solid fuel and case materials.?
If the rocket is two stage then part must necessarily be discarded, so the vehicle would not be completely renewable.

One aspect of the flight that needs to be clarified is launch angle. I see no reason why the customer cannot select the launch angle, from vertical to some angle East. The greater the lean East, the greater the time of passage through the dense atmosphere.

On the ** other ** hand, the greater the lean East, the better for design of an ellipse that is most favorable for rocket circularization.

(th)

GW Johnson · 2024-06-20 09:17:05

You lean the trajectory just a tad to offset the effect of the spinning Earth. That is what makes it go up, seemingly straight up, and straight back down. Lean it any further than that, and you incur two very serious problems: (1) lower apogee (mechanical energy must be conserved), and (2) your carrier vehicle comes down supersonic at some remote site.

The lean angle is not something designed into the prototype as adjustable. You would have to rotate the whole shell, there is only one small exit portal, covered with a thin diaphragm that the carrier vehicle bursts through. I'm not sure what the design apogee altitude is, but the prototype has yet to achieve "exit" from the atmosphere.

Even the notion of "exit" depends upon speed. At low to only supersonic speeds, the air is thin enough to ignore drag forces at only about 150,000 feet (roughly 45-50 km). At orbital-class speeds, you need to be above 140 km in order to ignore drag forces. That is why the "entry interface altitude" for Earth is set to 140 km (135 km at Mars).

Basically, the slinger "poots-out" the carrier vehicle at something near 5000 mph, which lets it coast up to an apogee somewhere above 90-100 km, hopefully. Hopefully more like above 140 km. The carrier vehicle opens up, freeing the payload and its 2-stage solid booster rocket. That rocket then takes the payload to speed in the desired direction. The carrier vehicle fall back for parachute recovery at the launch site.

I do foresee an extreme difficulty getting a two-stage solid rocket design with enough dV to reach orbital speed, fired from stationary at apogee. Because of the 10,000 gee exposure during spin, feasible solid propellant grain designs that could survive are extremely restricted, basically to flat pancakes at the bottom of a squat can. It will be quite difficult to pack enough propellant into each stage, under such restrictive circumstances.

I rather doubt the spin launch folks have yet looked at this solid design problem. They might be better off marketing cheap suborbital instrument shots, at least at first.

GW

tahanson43206 · 2024-06-20 18:31:06

For GW re #49

Thank you for giving some serious thought to the SpinLaunch concept.

The note the SpinLaunch team may not have thought through the solid rocket part of their plan is interesting.

There may be an opportunity for you to give them some help.

One question that I have, based upon your observation about flat pancakes, is whether you might be thinking of solid fuel that is used to produce a detonation upon impace at a military target. The G force in such a case would necessarily lead to a pancake shape.

The SpinLaunch projectile is NOT accelerated along it's long axis, is is the case with a military shell.

The rocket grains would be driven against the side of the container. What effect might that change of orientation have on design?

I don't foresee being able to allocate mass to a parachute. However, the idea is definitely interesting, if a bit fanciful.

(th)

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#26 2023-09-03 14:13:47

Re: Spin Launch SpinLaunch Vacuum Launches Centrifuge Launched Mass

#27 2023-09-04 09:37:55

Re: Spin Launch SpinLaunch Vacuum Launches Centrifuge Launched Mass

#28 2023-09-04 11:10:27

Re: Spin Launch SpinLaunch Vacuum Launches Centrifuge Launched Mass

#29 2023-10-02 08:33:34

Re: Spin Launch SpinLaunch Vacuum Launches Centrifuge Launched Mass

#30 2023-10-02 10:26:40

Re: Spin Launch SpinLaunch Vacuum Launches Centrifuge Launched Mass

#31 2023-10-02 10:34:11

Re: Spin Launch SpinLaunch Vacuum Launches Centrifuge Launched Mass

#32 2023-11-01 04:09:47

Re: Spin Launch SpinLaunch Vacuum Launches Centrifuge Launched Mass

#33 2024-01-26 17:17:26

Re: Spin Launch SpinLaunch Vacuum Launches Centrifuge Launched Mass

#34 2024-01-26 18:24:55

Re: Spin Launch SpinLaunch Vacuum Launches Centrifuge Launched Mass

#35 2024-04-03 11:19:59

Re: Spin Launch SpinLaunch Vacuum Launches Centrifuge Launched Mass

#36 2024-04-03 11:33:14

Re: Spin Launch SpinLaunch Vacuum Launches Centrifuge Launched Mass

#37 2024-04-03 16:06:16

Re: Spin Launch SpinLaunch Vacuum Launches Centrifuge Launched Mass

#38 2024-04-03 21:01:34

Re: Spin Launch SpinLaunch Vacuum Launches Centrifuge Launched Mass

#39 2024-06-15 14:56:58

Re: Spin Launch SpinLaunch Vacuum Launches Centrifuge Launched Mass

#40 2024-06-16 13:53:08

Re: Spin Launch SpinLaunch Vacuum Launches Centrifuge Launched Mass

#41 2024-06-18 06:31:27

Re: Spin Launch SpinLaunch Vacuum Launches Centrifuge Launched Mass

#42 2024-06-18 06:33:56

Re: Spin Launch SpinLaunch Vacuum Launches Centrifuge Launched Mass

#43 2024-06-18 14:59:32

Re: Spin Launch SpinLaunch Vacuum Launches Centrifuge Launched Mass

#44 2024-06-18 16:03:07

Re: Spin Launch SpinLaunch Vacuum Launches Centrifuge Launched Mass

#45 2024-06-18 18:30:40

Re: Spin Launch SpinLaunch Vacuum Launches Centrifuge Launched Mass

#46 2024-06-18 19:57:00

Re: Spin Launch SpinLaunch Vacuum Launches Centrifuge Launched Mass

#47 2024-06-19 16:12:42

Re: Spin Launch SpinLaunch Vacuum Launches Centrifuge Launched Mass

#48 2024-06-19 19:23:17

Re: Spin Launch SpinLaunch Vacuum Launches Centrifuge Launched Mass

#49 2024-06-20 09:17:05

Re: Spin Launch SpinLaunch Vacuum Launches Centrifuge Launched Mass

#50 2024-06-20 18:31:06

Re: Spin Launch SpinLaunch Vacuum Launches Centrifuge Launched Mass

Board footer