I watched most of it. He didn’t ‘bust’ anything, other than to point out that the projectile came out of the spinlauncher at a cocked angle. That’s what teating is for.
His other point, which might be reasonable and might not, is that the thing won’t work at scale because of the speeds involved. Maybe, maybe not.
Thunderfoot’s first ‘busted’ videos were pretty good. But my opinion is that he’s been trying to capture those viral moments with further ‘busted’ videos where his targets aren’t so easy and his arguments not particularly well developed.
Yeah, so long as the projectile stabilized and flew true after a bit, it’s not necessarily even a bad thing. And if it is, it might be a easy fix, not something that ‘busts’ the whole concept.
I wonder if you could use this for a stealth launch for something like a hypersonic weapon system. Though I suppose when you light up the 2nd stage the cat will be out of the bag.
The spinlaunch system does seem pretty cool. The fact that it takes an hour and a half to get it up to the right rotation though is going to mean you will only be able to do a few of these a day.
That Spin Launch thing, I know it’s a proof of concept prototype, but was there really a vacuum inside? Maybe I missed something but that flimsy seal that the rocket bust through - no way that’s holding a vacuum.
Yeah, I kind of thiught the same thing. And when the rocket burst through it didn’t look like the material was being drawn back into the chamber like I would suspect. And holding a vacuum in a non-soherical container like that would not be easy.
But I have no evidence of that other than those observations, and I could be wrong.
The promo videos say it takes an hour and a half to spin up the arm. But it doesn’t say anything about the time to achieve an interior vacuum. There’s not much in the video to reliably estimate scale, but that’s not a small space. As I recall, NASA’s space-simulation vacuum chamber takes something like seven or eight hours to evacuate the atmosphere. Seems to me that would be the limiting factor to launch turnaround, not the arm.
As usual, I don’t really see how all these smallsat lunach companies will survive, but I nevertheless wish them all the best of luck. Getting to orbit is no small feat in anyone’s book.
Yeah, good for them! It’s always good to have competition.
There are two paths to cheap orbit - reusability, and making sure your rocket is damned cheap in the first place. If they can 3D print a rocket for $50,000 in quantity, who cares if it’s reusable? I don’t know if that’s an attainable number, but with suitable enhancements in 3D printing tech, maybe?
The other niche they may have is in specialty launches that don’t easily rideshare, or launches on short notice that can’t wait for a berth on a Falcon 9 or Starship. Or perhaps some national security launches that can’t be rideshared.
I’d imagine national interest will keep the some of the launch systems going , regional presence will keep some alive and need for market diversity will keep a few more.
Which has a list of all the various companies around the world that are build launch systems, pay load capacity, $/kg and a short description of their technology. They have a handy dandy reality rating from 9 to 0 depending how ready they are. You can also download to excel which is nice.
I am sure there are quibbles to be had with the rating but as a ballpark it’s pretty good.
There are 71 companies listed for the USA, 14 have a 9,8,7 rating. I’d imagine there could be some consolidation amongst those but the market will keep competition alive
Also fwiw the rest of the world has 96 companies listed with 11 in the 9,8,7 range spread over 9 countries.
EtA they also have details on companies building habitats , communications systems , satellite service and debris mitigation, energy , etc ,very cool site that is about to become a time sink
You have to scroll to the bottom of the page for that stuff
James Webb launch put back to no earlier than 22nd Dec after an incident with a clamp band caused “vibrations” meaning they need to conduct tests to determine if anything was damaged.
That’s not good. I’ve noticed some confusion in various posts on the incident, though–when NASA says “observatory”, they mean the satellite itself, not the building it’s housed in. So when NASA said “A sudden, unplanned release of a clamp band—which secures Webb to the launch vehicle adapter—caused a vibration throughout the observatory”, they didn’t mean it shook the building. That would have been a little worse.
They should have built two. The second would have been way cheaper to build, would have added redundancy, a back up if one fails/blows up, and would allow them to do double the science. But I guess budgets don’t work that way (nor possibly does building space telescopes)
That is a good site; thanks for the link. I wonder a bit why Blue Origin merits a “9” on their SFR ranking, but I guess the funding source probably counts for a lot. And they don’t seem to dock points for being suborbital.
I think Astra is shooting for about $500k/launch, but that’s still likely a few times less than Electron. They’re definitely going for low cost and simplicity over higher performance (carbon fiber, etc.).
Rocket Lab at least clearly sees a race to the bottom price-wise, and wants to vertically integrate with their own satellite bus and the rest of the stack. That may well work out for them. Wouldn’t really shock me if they decide Electron isn’t worth it at some point.
It’s kinda funny, actually–I have another satellite project going at the moment which needs some core flight software, and Rocket Lab just bought out the software company at the top of our list. So good for them, but we aren’t too happy with them at the moment .
Yeah, I’m thinking about ultimate limits with 3D printing. Without knowing the detailed cost breakdown of their rocket it’s hard to guess how low they can go. But even $500K for a smallsat is a really good price if they vould sell a mission for that kind of money.
At costs even approaching those levels, they’ll also have to work on reducing personnel overhead. They’ve already done a great job there–their last launch only required 7 people on site. They claim to want to reduce this to 2. IIRC, they called these positions a “pilot” and “co-pilot”, which implies the minimum is actually one, but that they’ll have a second for redundancy.
Obviously, this requires automating virtually everything. But that seems fairly plausible.
.