37
submitted 11 months ago by TehBamski@lemmy.world to c/videos@lemmy.world
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] MossyFeathers@pawb.social 7 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago)

The idea of throwing something into space isn't anything new, tbh I've always kinda wondered why no one has spent more time developing it.

Edit: I wonder how many Gs the rocket experiences while spinning, and if a human could theoretically survive it long enough to get thrown into space. I can see it now: rockets becoming luxury space vehicles for rich people while the spin launch is how poor people commute to the space dock.

[-] sin_free_for_00_days@sopuli.xyz 11 points 11 months ago

The projectile experiences wicked g-forces when it is being spun up: around 10,000 times the force of gravity. This is enough to tear the skin and muscle off a human being. This means SpinLaunch will not be going into the astronaut business. They also won’t be able to drive large satellites into orbit. The projected weight limit for the system would be payloads of about 440 pounds. That is a lot less than something like the Hubble Space Telescope weighs. -- source

[-] NotBillMurray@lemmy.world 17 points 11 months ago

I mean, you would in fact get the astronaut into orbit, provided your container was water tight.

[-] MossyFeathers@pawb.social 4 points 11 months ago

Jesus fuck. I know humans can withstand extremely high g-forces for short periods of time, but 10,000 Gs is a lotta Gs.

[-] AngryCommieKender@lemmy.world 3 points 11 months ago

So.... Wouldn't a railgun system be able to do the same thing with less energy consumption?

[-] sin_free_for_00_days@sopuli.xyz 3 points 11 months ago

I think it would have to be crazy long up the side of a mountain or something to work. I always thought that would be cool to see. I'm just an ignorant layperson though. I know little of the actual science, but I have read a lot of science fiction in my life.

[-] AngryCommieKender@lemmy.world 2 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago)

I don't think it would need to be all that long. The Navy considered putting railguns on ships, they decided against it because they figured out pretty quickly that the munitions would have to be shot lower than the horizon so that they weren't firing shots into space, if they missed the target.

[-] SHOW_ME_YOUR_ASSHOLE@lemm.ee 2 points 11 months ago

I was wondering why they would care about firing shots into space, but then I realized that it's probably not enough velocity to escape our orbit and would just add to the orbital debris issue.

If the velocity was such that the projectile could exit our orbit, it would probably be less risky.

There's an interesting excerpt from one of the Expanse books about how all the rounds they fire from their space ships are probably going to travel through space for millions of years before they actually hit something.

[-] Bytemeister@lemmy.world 3 points 11 months ago

...if a human could theoretically survive it long enough to get thrown into space.

The answer is 'no'. This thing would spin all the blood out of your body, and then when it actually launches you, your body would get shattered by the shock, and then shattered again a millisecond later as your spacecraft plows into the atmosphere at a few mach number.

this post was submitted on 13 Oct 2023
37 points (89.4% liked)

Videos

14114 readers
425 users here now

For sharing interesting videos from around the Web!

Rules

  1. Videos only
  2. Follow the global Mastodon.World rules and the Lemmy.World TOS while posting and commenting.
  3. Link directly to the video source and not for example an embedded video in an article.
  4. Don't be a jerk
  5. No advertising
  6. Avoid clickbait titles. (Tip: Use dearrow)

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS