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 <mailto: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
<mailto: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=>