Jon:
I agree that the connection seems loose; Slingatron had a fair amount of
physics and even some engineering behind it....
Bill
On Fri, Feb 23, 2018 at 1:32 PM Jonathan Goff <jongoff@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Bill,
Are you sure this idea is related to Slingatron? From what I've seen of
SpinLaunch, the two ideas are only loosely related. I guess it's possible
they pivoted (pardon the pun) from Slingatron to their current concept, but
the two seem very different.
~Jon
On Fri, Feb 23, 2018 at 10:42 AM, William Claybaugh <wclaybaugh2@xxxxxxxxx
wrote:
I got briefed of this year’s ago, it was called “Slingatron” at that
point.
It seemed—to me—very amusing; a sort of mid-nineteenth century
engineering solution to throwing things pretty hard. Maybe a fun high
school science fair project.
I agree that the idea that VC’s actually understand their investments is
suspect in some cases....
Bill
On Fri, Feb 23, 2018 at 10:05 AM John Schilling <
john.schilling@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Yes, and if you can get around the gravity, the propulsion requirements
pretty much go away.
Even if you could get around the heating, that's not enough. You need
to get around the heating, and the drag, and the lateral G loading during
spin launch, all of that, without compromising the design to the extent
that your structural coefficient grows by more than maybe 0.01 - 0.02;
otherwise you're farther from orbit when you leave the catapult than you
would be sitting on the pad with a rocket that doesn't have to deal with
all that.
If you tell me your system is planning to reach orbit, I want to see
plain cylindrical or conical tanks / motor cases. Simple fairings or even
wings bolted onto the cylinders, fine, but not pointy-nose aerodynamic
sleekness or a TPS rated for hypersonic flight at sea level.
John Schilling
john.schilling@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
(661) 718-0955
On 2/22/2018 10:30 PM, Bernard Pritchard wrote:
Actually, if he can get around the heating, the G-forces can be held to
a very acceptable minimum. It all comes down to the radius of his launcher.
Do the math for yourselves.
Bernie Pritchard.
On Thu, Feb 22, 2018 at 10:04 PM, Lars Osborne <lars.osborne@xxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
The next time anyone claims that V.C.'s are careful investors who look
at technology fundamentals, I will show them this.
Thanks,
Lars Osborne
On Thu, Feb 22, 2018 at 9:45 PM, Ben Brockert <wikkit@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
I've been hearing rumors of them for months. They finally came out of
stealth, and are as silly as the name implies.
https://techcrunch.com/2018/02/22/spinlaunch/amp/
<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__techcrunch.com_2018_02_22_spinlaunch_amp_&d=DwMFaQ&c=clK7kQUTWtAVEOVIgvi0NU5BOUHhpN0H8p7CSfnc_gI&r=rPTfWqtJdrL0Ber-yr0E_hSjRXuvJH6ZmQx03u8-2as&m=hbqE1lS_NdVVeeLPmyIl6pnPAi7wQMtkYBEnHvL9_oQ&s=f93RNxdGGOTWqWasfHYgtJS5PAbUwqFdHQsNh9O6Vuc&e=>