Spin Launch SpinLaunch Vacuum Launches Centrifuge Launched Mass

GW Johnson · 2024-06-21 12:49:15

I did not see on the website exactly how the carrier vehicle is positioned on the slinger. I rather doubt it's tangentially-oriented. Would make more structural sense to be radially oriented, except that does not orient correctly at release.

I once did some propellant grain designs for a small motor to be flown in a gas gun shock tunnel at about Mach 25. This was for both impact stuff and for signature adjustments of decoys flying along with entering warheads. Launch was somewhere in the 5000 gee class, if memory serves and it may not).

Those little motors were squat cans of an L/D a bit less than 1. The nozzle was mounted re-entrant into the center of the aft end. The propellant was a thick pancake shaped like a washer, about that nozzle, supported by the aft surface of the motor case, and by the case on its outer diameter, and by the nozzle on its inner diameter. Propellant does not have the strength to stand unsupported at such gee levels.

GW

tahanson43206 · 2024-06-21 17:18:27

For GW Johnson (and all who might be interested in SpinLaunch...

This video includes an illustration of the SpinLauanch payload carrier attached to the arm.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yrc632oilWo

The image of (possible) interest is at minute 16:38

If you pause the video at that point, you can see the bullet shape held by the arm so that the tip is pointing in the direction of motion.

(th)

SpaceNut · 2024-06-23 19:36:49

SRB grain and oscillation was due to chamber length fundamental over tone.
Solid Rocket Booster (SRB) - Evolution and Lessons Learned During the Shuttle Program

https://wikis.mit.edu/confluence/displa … Geometries
image2021-1-3%2012%3A50%3A19.png?version=1&modificationDate=1609696768000&api=v2

https://www.nasa.gov/wp-content/uploads … 092022.pdf

tahanson43206 · 2024-06-23 19:44:05

For SpaceNut re very interesting post #53

The images you found all show the traditional kind of solid rocket motor that would not work for the SpinLaunch situation.

As GW explained, the solid rocket material would flow like a liquid toward the outside of the casing during windup before release.

Therefore, the rocket motor designer must plan for the gases produced by combustion of the fuel to flow along the inside of the casing.

This will require experimentation to find the right shape for the rocket casing.

It might be possible to use advanced CFD programs (Computational Fluid Dynamics) to model the situation that the SpinLaunch folks are going to be facing.

The solid rocket grain would (presumably) be cast in the shape the material will assume under G forces, so that the shape of the material would not change much as the G forces increase.
(th)

SpaceNut · 2024-06-24 17:20:02

Centripetal forces as GW would indicate that once spin stops, and projectile is releases must realign back long ways to the direction that the rocket is taking. Even with a slight curve the rocket is climbing at a slope towards the orbit.

The reason for the srb to bend is due to the long ways grain and burn openings that allow it to create chamber pressure to eject through the nozzle of the rocket.

A pancake slice will still require the same long ways means to burn.

So the fuel mix requires pure metal inside the fuel to act as a stiffener to the bending so as to keep it ready to burn.

tahanson43206 · 2024-06-24 19:49:44

For SpaceNut re #55

As I read your post, I get the impression you are interested in learning the physics of designing a solid fuel rocket capable of surviving lateral acceleration to a minimum of 10,000 G's, and then performing well in a two stage configuration to put a payload into LEO.

If you ** are ** interested in tackling this learning experience, you have a domain expert available to help you.

If you decide to take this on, you have the potential opportunity to help others who might be following along.

(th)

GW Johnson · 2024-06-25 09:40:04

Propellants with hard things embedded in it, historically did not prove to be very successful. As the composite structure deforms, the propellant-stiffener interface sees shear forces, and so the propellant then debonds from the stiffener. That not only weakens the composite structure, it also allows excess burning surface to be exposed to the flame as the surface burns back. That extra unintended burning surface results in a motor explosion, very nearly 100% of the time it occurs.

GW

SpaceNut · 2024-06-25 18:40:05

I was thinking of stacking these cones which has the inverse shape inside to allow them to bend but not break.

tahanson43206 · 2024-06-26 06:17:39

For SpaceNut re #58

That is an interesting concept, and there may be a way to make it work in the scenario of this topic.

A factor to consider is that anything not made of metal will turn into a liquid at 10,000 G's of acceleration.

My understanding of the problem (subject to correction as we go along) is that the propellant will turn into a liquid like water you might have in a bucket you swing about your center of gravity. The surface of the liquid will tend to be flat perpendicular to the line of the cord, and the liquid beneath the surface will take the shape of the cavity below.

In the case of the rocket that I am hoping GW will design for SpinLaunch, the liquid would take the shape of the cylindrical wall of the rocket vehicle. The problem for the rocket engineer in that case, is to design for the burn surface being a flat surface that runs the length of the segment for either the first or the second stage.

If you happen to run across any images of what this might look like, they would be helpful for a reader of this topic.

I'll go back and look at the images you showed us of cross sections of solid rocket motors.

As I recall, they all assumed that the fuel would hold it's shape prior to launch.

Update after review of #53... The examples shown in the post are all centered on the geometric center of the cylinder. In the case of SpinLaunch, GW predicts that the grain will flow like water to provide a cavity above the surface. That cavity is where gases would flow to create thrust. I am hoping that GW (or anyone else with knowledge in this subject) will comment upon the practicality of building a solid fuel rocket that will function not only ** well ** but ** superbly well ** after experiencing 10,000 G's perpendicular to the longitudinal axis.

(th)

SpaceNut · 2024-06-26 16:51:38

I got thinking about rockets that already use solids to launch from the ground to orbit and it might be possible to use what exits.

https://spaceflight101.com/members/wp-c … taur-V.pdf

https://www.nasa.gov/wp-content/uploads … v_fact.pdf

https://www.northropgrumman.com/space/minotaur-rocket

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minotaur_(rocket_family)

Not sure of the length of burn that is required on thrust at this point for the payload to make it to orbit.

About those things that are known is that exit from the spin is hgih but the payload is small.

tahanson43206 · 2024-06-26 17:59:37

For SpaceNut .... your post #60 appears to be about solid fuel rockets that do not experience 10,000 G's of lateral acceleration before they are ignited to provide thrust. You have provided a set of links, but you have provided no text that would indicate the rockets described at the links would work for SpinLaunch.

In your searches of the Internet, for posts for this topic, please try to find examples of solid fuel rockets that can be fired after they have experienced 10,000 G's of acceleration in a direction perpendicular to the axis of the rocket.

GW Johnson has attempted to persuade his readers that solid fuel material will flow like water under 10,000 G's.

You do not appear to be convinced. What can we do to help you to visualize what is going to happen to solid fuel material when it is spun up to 10,000 G's?

It is possible that due to the demands on your time (which are many), you might have missed GW's post(s) on what happens to solid fuel when it is subjected to G force?

It might be possible to find the posts. I think they are in this topic.

I'd like to (at least try to) encourage you to keep searching the Internet. There may be someone working on this problem already. To the best of my knowledge, no human being in the history of Earth has created a solid fuel rocket that is able to perform at all, let alone well enough to meet the requirements of this application. However, if there ** is ** such a person, and they have posted something about their work on the Internet, I expect you can find it.

This topic has the opportunity to provide a feast of timely and useful information about a technology that (as far as I know) does not exist, but which MUST exist in order for SpinLaunch to succeed.

(th)

tahanson43206 · 2024-06-27 07:12:16

I have opened a Project Topic for the SpinLaunch solid rocket motor.

We have a domain expert in our community, and I am hoping he may be able to design a solid rocket motor for SpinLaunch.

The SpinLaunch company will most certainly be addressing this problem since their business case depends upon successful design of a solid fuel rocket that can survive lateral acceleration to 10,000 G's or more.

I am posting this announcement here because I am not sure if everyone can see the new Projects category.

Here is a link that I hope will lead to the transcript of today's session with ChatGPT:

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Gh2 … sp=sharing

(th)

SpaceNut · 2024-06-27 20:25:01

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

cross section mass will not distort the solid rock-hard propellant in a booster.

If it does, then brace it on the inside to oppose the direction of the outward motion like a curved flat bed of a truck trailer.

main-qimg-326a4eee5196143d8b90ab158aa0cccd-lq

Also, if it does become a gel then it's going to flow out of the engine nozzle.

tahanson43206 · 2024-06-28 08:13:20

For SpaceNut re Post #63

Thanks for the diagram of centripetal acceleration, and for the interesting image of a truck trailer.

Your text suggests that you are not able to accept GW Johnson's report that solid fuel rocket material will turn to a fluid under 10,000 G's.

I must ask why you are resisting this information?

GW Johnson has built and flown solid fuel rocket engines at 5,000 G's of acceleration.

He has reported to you what he observed.

You have chosen not to accept GW's report.

Please explain why you do not accept GW's report from actual experience.

We cannot make any progress if the members of our tiny (three person) project team are not on the same page, or even in the same book.

Your observation about the gel flowing out the nozzle is ** really ** helpful.

This is the kind of observation that can help GW Johnson to design a rocket motor for this challenging environment.

Your observation is based upon the idea that the nozzle I located in the center of the rocket motor cylinder. I had not thought about placement of the nozzle until you made this astute observation. It is up to GW Johnson to determine if the rocket nozzle can be located off center.

If the nozzle cannot be placed off center, then the grain cannot be loaded higher than the bottom of the nozzle.

That is an ** excellent ** observation!

Thanks!

(th)

tahanson43206 · 2024-06-28 19:53:38

In this post, ChatGPT attempts to model a solid fuel rocket that has been compressed into a cylindrical section shape by G forces, while the nozzle is offset from the center.

import numpy as np
import matplotlib.pyplot as plt
# Parameters (adjustable)
r = 1.0 # Radius of cylinder
L_c = 10.0 # Length of cylinder
h = 0.5 * r # Initial height of cylindrical segment (distance from central axis)
burn_rate = 0.1 # Burn rate of the propellant (arbitrary units)
specific_impulse = 250 # Specific impulse (arbitrary units)
total_burn_time = 10.0 # Total burn time (arbitrary units)
nozzle_offset = 0.5 # Offset of the nozzle from the central axis
# Calculate the initial surface area of the cylindrical segment
def segment_area(radius, height, length):
"""Calculate the area of a cylindrical segment."""
theta = 2 * np.arccos((radius - height) / radius)
segment_area = 0.5 * radius**2 * (theta - np.sin(theta))
return segment_area * length
initial_surface_area = segment_area(r, h, L_c)
# Initial Thrust
T_0 = initial_surface_area * burn_rate * specific_impulse
# Time array
time = np.linspace(0, total_burn_time, 1000)
# Burn surface area changes
def burn_surface_area(t, total_time, initial_height, radius, length):
"""Calculate the burn surface area at time t for a cylindrical segment with fluid grain."""
if t <= total_time / 2:
# Increasing phase
current_height = initial_height + (radius - initial_height) * (2 * t / total_time)
else:
# Decreasing phase
current_height = radius - (radius - initial_height) * (2 * (t - total_time / 2) / total_time)
return segment_area(radius, current_height, length)
# Adjust thrust for off-center nozzle
def thrust_adjustment(thrust, offset, radius):
"""Adjust the thrust to account for the off-center nozzle placement."""
adjustment_factor = np.cos(np.arctan(offset / radius))
return thrust * adjustment_factor
# Thrust profile
thrust = [T_0 * burn_surface_area(t, total_burn_time, h, r, L_c) / initial_surface_area for t in time]
adjusted_thrust = [thrust_adjustment(T, nozzle_offset, r) for T in thrust]
# Plotting the thrust profile
plt.figure(figsize=(10, 6))
plt.plot(time, adjusted_thrust, label='Thrust over Time with Off-Center Nozzle')
plt.xlabel('Time')
plt.ylabel('Thrust')
plt.title('Thrust Profile of Solid Rocket Motor with Cylindrical Segment Grain and Off-Center Nozzle')
plt.legend()
plt.grid(True)
plt.show()

If a NewMars member has Python installed, I'd appreciate a report on the performance of the program.

The computer where I have Python installed is in transit to a new location and not available.

I deduce that the off-center thrust will cause the vehicle to curve in a direction opposite to the offset. This "feature" might be enlisted to curve the flight from vertical toward horizontal.

(th)

tahanson43206 · 2024-06-29 06:26:36

This topic has the opportunity to provide an environment for development of a new kind of solid fuel rocket, never seen before on Earth (to the best of my knowledge, subject to updates).

It will help for members with the needed skills to provide images that show the work in progress.

At the moment, we seem to be approaching consensus that the rocket will have an offset nozzle, to prevent fuel from flowing out the nozzle during acceleration. We have a preliminary impression that the offset rocket nozzle might actually assist the mission planner in designing the flight, because the launched vehicle must curve to the East. What is also clear is that the amount of thrust will vary during the burn, as the surface exposed changes due to the changed cross section of the fuel exposed for combustion.

In short, we have (what I hope are) very interesting technical challenges to overcome, in order to publish a first-in-the-world design for a solid fuel rocket suitable for the SpinLaunch concept.

(th)

tahanson43206 · 2024-06-29 18:11:21

GW Johnson sent me three documents that pertain to this subject, but I am not currently able to process them. If there is a reader of this topic who is willing to make a little extra effort, the material is published at the exRocketman blog...

From an email...

If you like, that thread about the spin launch solid motor would be the right place, I think.
In addition to the stuff discussed in the thread, there is a good posting about solid propellant ballistics located on my "exrocketman" site. It is quite possible for anyone to copy that article and save it as a Word file or a pdf file. It is titled "Solid Rocket Analysis" and it is dated 16 February 2020. The quickest way to reach it is to go to the site, click on 2020 in the archive tool (left side of page), then click on "February" for that year. There's no need to click on the title, it was the most recent thing posted that month.

Here is the site: https://exrocketman.blogspot.com/

(th)

SpaceNut · 2024-06-29 18:28:22

payload carrier cone will need to have a heat shielding material on it to cut through the atmosphere as the speed at which it's going to cut through the lower atmosphere is going to create heat greater than the same item would have on orbital re-entry.

THE AERODYNAMIC HEATING OF ATMOSPHERE ENTRY VEHICLES - A REVIEW

normal heat shield re-entry path
https://i.sstatic.net/wuIVB.jpg

Of course with that we are going to see the payload slow
https://x-engineer.org/aerodynamic-drag/

tahanson43206 · 2024-06-29 18:50:26

For SpaceNut ....

Thank you for your continuing interest in and support of this topic!

As a reminder, you can see for your self the artillery shell shape of the SpinLaunch projectile.

https://newmars.com/forums/viewtopic.ph … 34#p224634

If you don't have time to watch the entire video, you can see the projectile at the end of the swing arm at about minute 16. I've published the exact time in the post at the link above.

In short, I think the SpinLaunch team have solved the projectile shape problem.

What they have NOT solved is the solid fuel motor to carry the payload from apogee of the initial launch to LEO. That is the piece that GW Johnson might be able to solve.

At this point, we know the nozzle must be off set from center, and this leads to stability issues. There may be a solution, and I am hoping GW can come up with it.

This is a good time for me to remind you that GW ** really liked ** your insight that the traditional centered rocket nozzle would NOT work for this application.

Since the SpinLaunch engineers are all young folks, they will have to learn the hard way that their fuel will squeeze out the nozzle during acceleration ahead of launch.

(th)

tahanson43206 · 2024-06-29 20:52:01

I asked ChatGPT to think about the problem of the offset rocket nozzle. It might be possible to cant the nozzle so that the centerline of thrust passes through the center of gravity of the vehicle...

Considerations for Designing a Solid Rocket Motor for SpinLaunch
We are attempting to solve a problem that (as far as we can tell) has never been addressed before. For our readers who are joining this discussion anew, here is a quick review of the situation. We are seeking to design a solid rocket motor that can push a payload to Low Earth Orbit (LEO) after the package has been spun around a pivot until the force at the end of the swing arm is on the order of 10,000 G's.
**Challenges with High G-Forces:**
- At 10,000 G's, the rocket fuel will turn into a fluid.
- We have moved the rocket nozzle from the center of the cylinder to the edge of the cylinder to address this.
**Nozzle Alignment Concerns:**
Our resident rocket designer pointed out that the normal orientation of the nozzle is with its center axis aligned with the center of gravity (CG) of the spacecraft. Moving the nozzle away from the centerline without changing the angle of thrust from the nozzle would lead to a spinning motion of the vehicle. A possible solution is to change the centerline of the nozzle so that it passes through the CG of the vehicle. The vehicle itself will need to be canted so that the thrust of the nozzle is aligned with the desired forward motion of the package.
**
Thrust Vectoring and Alignment
**
1. **Thrust Vector Alignment:** If the nozzle's thrust vector is not aligned with the vehicle's desired trajectory, it can induce unwanted torques and rotational forces. Proper alignment ensures that the thrust force contributes maximally to the desired motion (forward motion in this case) without causing the rocket to spin uncontrollably.
2. **Center of Gravity (CG) Alignment:** The nozzle should be angled such that its thrust vector passes through the CG of the rocket. This minimizes rotational forces and ensures that the thrust force is used efficiently to accelerate the rocket.
**
Effects of Nozzle Angle
**
1. **[darkgreen]Off-Center Thrust:[/darkgreen]** An off-center nozzle that is not properly angled will create a torque around the CG, potentially causing the rocket to spin. This can be countered by angling the nozzle to align the thrust vector with the CG.
2. **[darkgreen]Canting the Vehicle:[/darkgreen]** Tilting or canting the vehicle to align the nozzle's thrust vector with the desired trajectory can help manage the thrust direction. However, this requires precise calculations to ensure stability and control during flight.
3. **[darkgreen]Fluid Dynamics of the Propellant:[/darkgreen]** The fluid nature of the propellant under high G-forces means that its distribution within the rocket will be affected by the orientation and angle of the nozzle. Ensuring an even burn and consistent thrust requires careful design to avoid uneven burning or oscillations.
**
Potential Solutions
**
1. **Fixed Cant Angle with Pre-Calculated Compensation:**
- **Initial Design:** Calculate the initial angle of the nozzle such that the thrust vector passes through the initial CG of the rocket.
- **Progressive Compensation:** Design the burn profile and propellant distribution to minimize CG shifts. This could involve using internal baffles or varying grain shapes to control the burn rate and mass distribution.
2. **Adjustable Nozzle Angle:**
- **Simple Mechanisms:** Instead of a fully gimbaled nozzle, a simpler mechanical adjustment could be made before launch to set the nozzle angle based on pre-flight calculations of the expected CG shift.
- **Sequential Staging:** Use multiple stages with their own nozzles. Each stage could be optimized for its part of the flight, with the CG recalculated and the nozzle angle adjusted accordingly for each stage.
3. **Active Control Systems:**
- **Reaction Control System (RCS):** Small thrusters or vanes could provide minor adjustments to the rocket's orientation, compensating for CG shifts and ensuring stable flight.
- **Aerodynamic Fins:** During the lower atmosphere phase, aerodynamic fins can help stabilize the rocket and counteract any rotational forces caused by misalignment of the thrust vector.
4. **Propellant Management:**
- **Even Burn Rate:** Design the grain geometry and burn profile to ensure an even burn rate, reducing the rate of CG shift.
- **Propellant Flow Guides:** Use internal guides to ensure that the propellant flows and burns in a way that maintains a more stable CG.
**
Simplified Approach for Initial Testing
**
Given the constraints and the need for simplicity, a combination of fixed nozzle angle and passive stabilization might be a practical initial approach:
1. **Fixed Nozzle Angle:** Set the nozzle angle to align with the initial CG. Calculate the expected CG shift and adjust the grain geometry and burn profile to minimize CG movement.
2. **Aerodynamic Fins:** Use fins to provide stability during the initial phase of flight, reducing the impact of any minor thrust misalignments.
3. **Balanced Grain Burn:** Design the grain to burn symmetrically, maintaining a more consistent CG.
**
Next Steps
**
1. **Detailed Calculations:** Perform detailed calculations to determine the initial CG and expected CG shift during flight. Use these calculations to set the initial nozzle angle.
2. **Simulations:** Run simulations to model the burn profile, CG shift, and thrust vector alignment. Use these simulations to refine the design and ensure stability.
3. **Prototype Testing:** Build a prototype with a fixed nozzle angle and passive stabilization features. Conduct ground tests to validate the design before moving to full-scale testing.

(th)

GW Johnson · 2024-06-30 00:21:39

An offset nozzle from motor centerline is a problem you can handle by making sure the nozzle axis points through the vehicle center of gravity (more complicated than it sounds, since the cg moves as you burn off propellant).

Any thrust axis that does not point right through the cg must be balanced by another opposing moment, and I do mean EXACTLY balanced! Any unbalanced moment WILL cause the vehicle to spin and tumble. That is NOT a feasible means to control or shape the trajectory.

GW

tahanson43206 · 2024-06-30 06:27:09

For GW Johnson!

Thanks for confirming the notion that the nozzle could be pointed so the centerline of thrust passes through the Center of Gravity of the space craft.

ChatGPT suggested the nozzle might be mounted on a gimbal, but I suspect that is probably not affordable if we only have 200 kilograms to work with. Can you suggest a way of steering the jet at flight time? I recall that Von Braun used graphite panels. I found an Austrailian site that says Von Braun used four graphite rudders and vanes, but I can't tell from that article if the panels were directing the flow of exhaust gas, or just the air flow past the vehicle. Bottom line: would a graphite panel be able to direct the gas flow in this application? Or would it make more sense to (somehow) change the orientation of the nozzle at run time? Is it even ** possible ** to change the orientation of the nozzle at run time without complex mechanical components?

Additional question .... in correspondence you indicated the Minuteman was a three stage solid fuel design. The SpinLaunch concept replaces the first stage with the toss mechanism, so the remaining two stages would be consistent with Minuteman. Am I correct in presuming that the SpinLaunch projectile/casing must be designed to separate the first solid rocket from the main body after it has performed it's work, and if so, how much mass would that mechanism require?

For aerodynamic flight in the toss phase, would it make sense to include a tapered end on the vehicle to avoid the drag that might be caused by a blunt end?

In that case, the tapered end would have to be discarded when the second stage ignites. Can the second stage simply blow the tapered end off?

Would the discarded components become debris to potentially cause damage down range?

Here is a link to a web site that appears to be showing a view of the proposed projectile. The cross section view seems to show a small solid fuel rocket designed in the traditional way, with the nozzle in the center. This would indicate the designers of this particular version have no experience with operations at 5,000 G's, let alone 10,000 G's.

https://kr-asia.com/to-infinity-and-bey … -catapults

(th)

SpaceNut · 2024-06-30 06:46:38

Another post that belongs here

tahanson43206 wrote:

This post is about the collaboration between GW Johnson and tahanson43206, to study options for delivery of payload to an orbiting refueling station when the launch device is a ballistic launcher, such as Dr. John Hunter's gas gun or the SpinLaunch rotary device.
The result of the collaboration was a clarification that a burn is required to circularize orbit with either the traditional fly-up-from-below approach, or the drop-down-from-high-apogee approach which I'd been wondering about. What remains to be determined is whether there is any difference in dV between the two approaches.
Above: Four studies of elliipses
Below .... Study of "inside" and "outside" docking scenarios...
The question that remains unanswered is whether that are any business advantages to the "outside" docking maneuver... the "inside" docking maneuver has been thoroughly studied and is the accepted solution for any ballistic launcher system I've read about. I asked Dr. Johnson to take a look at the "outside" maneuver to see if it might have any advantages. It requires more dV to reach the higher apogee, but the dV from a ballistic launcher is not limited the way it is with a traditional rocket system. The question I am trying to answer is whether there is any business advantage to the higher apogee approach.
In his previous analysis of the "inside" docking maneuver, GW concluded that the window for meeting a "dumb" payload is about two minutes, which is unlikely to be practical. This scenario featured a space tug that departed the refueling station to meet the arriving "dumb" payload, slow to match velocity, and then accelerate to catch up with the refueling station.
The traditional approach is to allocate part of the ballistic launcher payload to a small solid fuel rocket and some minimal electronics to match orbit with the refueling station itself.
What I am curious to know is if there is any business advantage to launching the payload package to a higher apogee and then performing short burns to extend perigee, and to match orbit precisely with the refueling station when the two are close.
Update next day:
Here is a document that explains the crossings study:
https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/s5fxvvp8 … m9ov1&dl=0
Here is an updated version of the spreadsheet used for these calculations. It is an updated relative of the spreadsheet used in the course on Basic Orbital Mechanics:
https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/gkqxhkjz … pzrsg&dl=0
(th)

SpaceNut · 2024-06-30 09:33:55

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

SpinLaunch is developing a kinetic energy space launch system that reduces dependency on traditional chemical rockets, with the goal of significantly lowering the cost of access to space while increasing launch frequency. The technology uses a vacuum-sealed centrifuge to spin a rocket and then hurl it to space at up to 4,700 mph (7,500 km/h; 2.1 km/s). The rocket then ignites its engines at an altitude of roughly 200,000 ft (60 km) to reach orbital speed of 17,150 mph (27,600 km/h; 7.666 km/s) with a payload of up to 200kg. Peak acceleration would be approximately 10,000 g. If successful, the acceleration concept is projected to lower the cost of launches and to use much less power, with the price of a single space launch reduced by a factor of 20 to under US$500,000.
At Spaceport America in New Mexico on 22 October 2021, SpinLaunch conducted the first vertical test of their accelerator at 20% of its full power capacity, hurling a 10-foot-long (3.0 m) passive projectile to an altitude of "tens of thousands of feet." This test accelerator is 108 ft (33 m) in diameter, which makes it a one-third scale of the operational system that is being designed. The company's first 10 test flights reached as much as 30,000 feet (9,100 m) in altitude.

tahanson43206 wrote:

For SpaceNut re addition to SpinLaunch topic ...
Thanks for bringing over the images and text from earlier work on the payload delivery procedure.
The high ellipse method does not seem possible for the SpinLaunch system, at this point. It would be challenging for the gas gun method, at it's present state of development.
Major advances would be needed in both systems to permit the use of the high ellipse concept. However, if it ** can ** be achieved, then it provides a way for mission planners to manage flights with greater control and much longer windows. The payloads in high ellipse will remain in orbit until a suitable delivery window can be arranged, while the low ellipse method will have one and only one chance to reach the fuel depot. Failure in that case will result in loss of the payload.
(th)

Its why a kick stage is being add to the spin launch rocket so as to achieve orbit.

The rocket once released will slow as it follows the profile such that it will need addition energy to get to orbit.

SpaceNut · 2024-06-30 09:46:32

The kick stage means this is a TSTO rocket

https://i.sstatic.net/boqDU.jpg

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TGO4LtCctTk

The customer payloads launched by the accelerator had to survive up to 10,000 Gs (that's 10,000 times the force of Earth's gravity) as the 108-foot-long (33 meters) rotating arm hidden inside a white casing spun up the payload faster than the speed of sound.
The full-scale orbital accelerator could shoot small constellations of satellites into low Earth orbit, the region below the altitude of 600 miles (1,000 kilometers), as soon as 2026, the company envisions.

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#51 2024-06-21 12:49:15

Re: Spin Launch SpinLaunch Vacuum Launches Centrifuge Launched Mass

#52 2024-06-21 17:18:27

Re: Spin Launch SpinLaunch Vacuum Launches Centrifuge Launched Mass

#53 2024-06-23 19:36:49

Re: Spin Launch SpinLaunch Vacuum Launches Centrifuge Launched Mass

#54 2024-06-23 19:44:05

Re: Spin Launch SpinLaunch Vacuum Launches Centrifuge Launched Mass

#55 2024-06-24 17:20:02

Re: Spin Launch SpinLaunch Vacuum Launches Centrifuge Launched Mass

#56 2024-06-24 19:49:44

Re: Spin Launch SpinLaunch Vacuum Launches Centrifuge Launched Mass

#57 2024-06-25 09:40:04

Re: Spin Launch SpinLaunch Vacuum Launches Centrifuge Launched Mass

#58 2024-06-25 18:40:05

Re: Spin Launch SpinLaunch Vacuum Launches Centrifuge Launched Mass

#59 2024-06-26 06:17:39

Re: Spin Launch SpinLaunch Vacuum Launches Centrifuge Launched Mass

#60 2024-06-26 16:51:38

Re: Spin Launch SpinLaunch Vacuum Launches Centrifuge Launched Mass

#61 2024-06-26 17:59:37

Re: Spin Launch SpinLaunch Vacuum Launches Centrifuge Launched Mass

#62 2024-06-27 07:12:16

Re: Spin Launch SpinLaunch Vacuum Launches Centrifuge Launched Mass

#63 2024-06-27 20:25:01

Re: Spin Launch SpinLaunch Vacuum Launches Centrifuge Launched Mass

#64 2024-06-28 08:13:20

Re: Spin Launch SpinLaunch Vacuum Launches Centrifuge Launched Mass

#65 2024-06-28 19:53:38

Re: Spin Launch SpinLaunch Vacuum Launches Centrifuge Launched Mass

#66 2024-06-29 06:26:36

Re: Spin Launch SpinLaunch Vacuum Launches Centrifuge Launched Mass

#67 2024-06-29 18:11:21

Re: Spin Launch SpinLaunch Vacuum Launches Centrifuge Launched Mass

#68 2024-06-29 18:28:22

Re: Spin Launch SpinLaunch Vacuum Launches Centrifuge Launched Mass

#69 2024-06-29 18:50:26

Re: Spin Launch SpinLaunch Vacuum Launches Centrifuge Launched Mass

#70 2024-06-29 20:52:01

Re: Spin Launch SpinLaunch Vacuum Launches Centrifuge Launched Mass

Considerations for Designing a Solid Rocket Motor for SpinLaunch

Thrust Vectoring and Alignment

Effects of Nozzle Angle

Potential Solutions

Simplified Approach for Initial Testing

Next Steps

#71 2024-06-30 00:21:39

Re: Spin Launch SpinLaunch Vacuum Launches Centrifuge Launched Mass

#72 2024-06-30 06:27:09

Re: Spin Launch SpinLaunch Vacuum Launches Centrifuge Launched Mass

#73 2024-06-30 06:46:38

Re: Spin Launch SpinLaunch Vacuum Launches Centrifuge Launched Mass

#74 2024-06-30 09:33:55

Re: Spin Launch SpinLaunch Vacuum Launches Centrifuge Launched Mass

#75 2024-06-30 09:46:32

Re: Spin Launch SpinLaunch Vacuum Launches Centrifuge Launched Mass

Board footer