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

Videos

14315 readers
374 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. Don't be a jerk
  4. No advertising
  5. No political videos, post those to !politicalvideos@lemmy.world instead.
  6. Avoid clickbait titles. (Tip: Use dearrow)
  7. Link directly to the video source and not for example an embedded video in an article or tracked sharing link.
  8. Duplicate posts may be removed

Note: bans may apply to both !videos@lemmy.world and !politicalvideos@lemmy.world

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] sin_free_for_00_days@sopuli.xyz 11 points 1 year ago (3 children)

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 1 year ago

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

[–] MossyFeathers@pawb.social 4 points 1 year 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 1 year ago (1 children)

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 1 year ago (1 children)

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 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

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 1 year 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.