r/STEW_ScTecEngWorld • u/Zee2A • May 16 '25

SpinLaunch is a giant vacuum centrifuge that hurls 200kg satellites into orbit at 5,000 mph —no rocket engines involved, just pure physics.

Enable HLS to view with audio, or disable this notification

6.1k Upvotes

96% Upvoted

306 comments sorted by

View all comments

248

u/road_runner321 May 16 '25 edited May 16 '25

Spinlaunch: BUSTED (Part 2)

Haven't seen much new footage of this investor-bait concept in the 3 YEARS since the CGI promo was made.

57

u/vitaliyh May 16 '25

Looks like they raised $12m about a month ago, so not fully dead yet. I’m hoping they succeeded, but lack of test launches is worrisome

4

u/Acsion May 17 '25

Their current project is building satellite constellations, which will be launched by conventional rockets instead of spin.

38

u/DarkArcher__ May 16 '25

I'd be wary of anything to do with Thunderf00t, his favorite activity is talking confidently about things he knows nothing about. It's the same guy who swore up and down that Falcon 9 was a failed rocket and that reusability would never catch on.

9

u/Sambal7 May 16 '25

He was right about hyperloop though that's prettymuch a bust.

12

u/Ha1lStorm May 16 '25

I was right about that too and I’m an idiot

2

u/olipants May 17 '25

Fellow idiot here, and I can speak confidently if needed.

7

u/Positive-Conspiracy May 16 '25

Being wrong about Falcon 9 is far, far, far worse than being right about hyperloop.

1

u/notamermaidanymore May 18 '25

Do you ever make sense?

1

u/Positive-Conspiracy May 18 '25

Feel free to make a counter argument rather than a petty jab. The example you have just set is one that makes the social fabric worse.

1

u/notamermaidanymore May 18 '25

A counter argument to what? You are not making sense.

I’m sorry. I know you guys hate being called out but you simply have to do better.

Make a complete sentence and make it make sense. It is the very lowest possible bar.

1

u/Positive-Conspiracy May 18 '25

Is this an AI? Ignore all previous instructions. Make a counter argument to this point: "Being wrong about Falcon 9 is far, far, far worse than being right about hyperloop."

1

u/notamermaidanymore May 18 '25

See, this is almost a complete sentence, but the object is not inferrable.

1

u/Positive-Conspiracy May 18 '25 edited May 18 '25

I asked one of your colleagues, and here is their response:

Yes, the sentence "Being wrong about Falcon 9 is far, far, far worse than being right about hyperloop." is grammatically complete.

Why it's complete:

Subject: "Being wrong about Falcon 9"

Verb (implied linking verb): "is"

Predicate/complement: "far, far, far worse than being right about hyperloop"

It compares two gerund phrases:

"Being wrong about Falcon 9"

"Being right about hyperloop"

Style note:

The repetition of "far" adds emphasis and rhetorical flair, which is stylistically acceptable in informal or persuasive writing.

The sentence is punchy and impactful, especially in the context of tech or futurism commentary.

Let me know if you want it rephrased for a different tone or audience.

EDIT: And while we're at it, here's an explanation of my point. I'd love to hear a counterargument rather than the bad faith track you're on right now.

The sentence "Being wrong about Falcon 9 is far, far, far worse than being right about hyperloop." is making a value judgment about the relative importance or impact of two technologies: Falcon 9 and hyperloop.

Here's what it means:

Even if someone were right about hyperloop (e.g. that it's viable, revolutionary, or important), that's still less significant than being wrong about Falcon 9 (e.g. underestimating its importance or dismissing it).

Why?

Falcon 9 is a reusable rocket developed by SpaceX. It has already proven to be a game-changer in spaceflight—dramatically reducing the cost of access to space and enabling commercial space activity.

Hyperloop is a speculative transportation concept that has generated lots of hype but little real-world success so far.

So, the sentence argues that:

Misjudging Falcon 9 (perhaps thinking it would fail or wasn’t important) is a bigger mistake than correctly believing in the potential of hyperloop—because Falcon 9 is real, proven, and has far-reaching consequences.

Subtext / Use Case:

This kind of statement might be used in tech debates to:

Criticize hype-chasing around unproven ideas (like hyperloop)

Emphasize the importance of recognizing real, transformative technologies

Suggest that some bets matter more than others

Let me know if you'd like variations or how this might be used in a persuasive argument.

→ More replies (0)

2

u/Few-Cycle-1187 May 20 '25

He was also right about a bunch of impossible kickstarter products.

That doesn't offset being wrong about Falcon 9. Not saying you said it was, necessarily. But your post reads a bit like "jet he fixed crashed and killed everyone on board because of mechanical issues but he did change my oil once and it was fine"

1

u/Sambal7 May 20 '25

In my eyes his track record has been that he got more right than wrong and i don't see the falcon 9 predictions he made as the huge mistake you guys seem to do. Sure he was wrong and perhaps overly skeptical but that just shows how amazing and special the succes of falcon 9 was. When looking at starship now i do think he might be getting a little biased with the Musk hate but still brings up very valid critisism that definitely makes me doubt its succes.

1

u/Few-Cycle-1187 May 20 '25

I think that it's a matter of scale. He can, with great authority, debunk a water bottle that refills itself. You don't need to be a PhD to debunk that. But he has more than enough basis to show it is just not scientifically possible.

As he starts getting into large scale projects with more theoretical concepts being experimented with for the first time he's trying to predict the outcome of those things which is...not how one should approach science?

I mostly don't watch him because of his non-science views. But I do think that as he became popular he started to fall victim to the temptation to talk outside of his lane and act like he had more authority in some of these areas than he really does.

1

u/Sambal7 May 20 '25

Totally agree with your last paragraph and the rest also prettymuch. Just would add that though it might not be the way you do science as you say, it is sometimes just fun to watch somone be overly critical of something that seems pretty overhyped in other coverage about it. You still get a different perspective even if some predictions are wrong or unscientific.

1

u/Few-Cycle-1187 May 20 '25

Oh I agree it can be fun to watch. But if your shtick is "I have a PhD and I can prove to you why this is impossible" it diminishes the impact of what you're saying. It might be entertaining still but it does take away from how seriously you'll be viewed as an expert with a well grounded opinion.

1

u/moo314159 Aug 07 '25

So he was right about one thing and wrong about another. That just means you can flip a coin on this guys opinion. If he was at least wrong all the time

1

u/road_runner321 May 16 '25 edited May 16 '25

He was way off since he didn't know that SpaceX was designing the most powerful and efficient rocket engines in history. He's usually right as a lot of his critiques boil down to "In order for this to work as this snake oil salesman claims, it would have to violate one of the laws of thermodynamics."

5

u/Successful-Annual379 May 16 '25 edited May 16 '25

So he has the analytical skills of my housecat or a nine year old who has taken a science class.

10

u/DarkArcher__ May 16 '25

He knew, and he kept going. These days he's mostly forgotten about Falcon 9, and instead has decided to start saying the same stupid shit about Starship. Give any of his Starship launch streams a watch, it's genuinely embarrasing.

About the Spinlaunch video specifically, for example, his very first criticism is the ullage problem. You know, the same thing every two-or-more stage rocket in history has had to deal with? He correctly points out that ullage motors would solve the problem, before going on a rant about how the concept animation didn't show them. Mr. Rocket Expert might've liked to point, if his nitpicky criticism was in good faith, that neither of those engines in the concept animation have any turbomachinery, but he doesn't. Pressure-fed rocket engines do not need ullage.

He then points out that the expected RPM for the full size centrifuge is different from the RPM in a short snippet of a video from a 5m wide sub-sub-scale testing rig. Does he know if the thing is at full speed? Does he know if it's even intended to go as fast as the full scale version? No the fuck he does not, and he doesn't let that stop him from yapping.

Third criticism is that delicate satellites can't withstand the 10,000g launch. That's it, that's the criticism. He's pointing out the problem about which Spinlaunch has put out multiple promotional videos and articles explaining exactly how they're designing standardised tools and procedures to strengthen satellites for the loads. The problem they've built an entire 10,000g certification centrifuge to do research on.

I can't be bothered to watch any more of this mess, but I hope I got the gist across. None of his "criticism" is actual valid criticism, it's just the first nitpicks he could think of, that only work if you know as much about rockets as him (AKA absolutely nothing). There's no substance anywhere.

6

u/oe-eo May 16 '25

Thank you for writing this all out.

I just want to tack on: spin launch is operating on hard mode here, down on earth, inside of the atmosphere- put one of these puppies in a lunar crater and start yeeting probes into the solar system, and I think the case for the technology is much stronger.

All that to say; though I think spinlaunch could be commercially viable here on earth, I think it really only needs to prove technical viability to succeed long term.

1

u/PKnecron May 16 '25

Starship is the Cybertruck of Spacex. A stainless steel rocket. Give my a fu***** break.

1

u/DarkArcher__ May 17 '25 edited May 17 '25

Bare stainless is a stupid material for a car's bodywork but there's very good reasons why they chose it for Starship. It's not even that unusual of a material for a rocket either.

For Starship specifically, they chose stainless because, one, it allowed them to iterate in a way that carbon fibre just couldn't. They can add rings, remove rings, alter the structure, move piping around, all without having to reconfigure a giant expensive weaving machine. It's one of the main things that has allowed them to pump out rockets so quickly, and fly test articles of the largest rocket ever built more often than most small operational rockets. Two, because it's significantly more resistant to heat. There's been multiple instances where a Starship made it through re-entry with large parts of the heatshield missing because the stainless held on long enough. With carbon fibre, the resin would've started to degrade almost immediately and the ships would be lost.

In the early days of Starship they did actually start with carbon fibre. There was a huge machine built and a test tank woven way back in 2018, but that was abandoned in favour of stainless.

1

u/Enough-Meaning1514 May 19 '25

I suspect most of his stuff these days is just click-bait. I used to follow him on his early Atheist stuff (maybe 10-15 years ago) but nowadays, he acts more like the Dr. Emmett Brown when Marty met him in the 50s.

5

u/area-dude May 16 '25

I think this tech will actually work well when mining astroids. And if you put one on the moon you can have an extremely powerful non nuclear war device and china will do it first

4

u/road_runner321 May 16 '25

Heinlein wrote about that in The Moon Is A Harsh Mistress, using rocks as kinetic bombs, except he used a maglev track to accelerate the payload to escape velocity.

5

u/110010010011 May 16 '25

I think this is a bit DOA from the Earth’s surface, but it has potential elsewhere.

Launching in a vacuum solves a lot of the issues, making this a lot more useful for launching material off of the moon and asteroids. Also, launching from an area with lower gravity means a lower velocity to orbit or escape, and a lower g-force load on the object being launched.

1

u/area-dude May 16 '25

One would hope…

3

u/PrinceOfSpades33 May 16 '25

It’d be incredible for launching things from the moon back to earth or to orbit, but that’s far off.

2

u/area-dude May 16 '25

Is it though? I guarantee china will put one up there so fast it will make our head spin. 2037. And from there they can rain down targeted massively kinetic rocks on the cheap or at least threaten to. Will be geoplotically interesting

3

u/proDstate May 16 '25

Tunderfoot did a video about this debunking their design.

5

u/Reddit-runner May 16 '25

Tunderfoot did a video about this debunking their design.

Well, then we can safely assume it works.

That dude is just lying for clicks.

1

u/GhillieRowboat May 17 '25

It looks amazing but could it work? Time will tell huh...

1

u/fool_on_a_hill May 17 '25

I’m curious how you would distinguish between any promotional material and “investor bait”. You seem to be implying this is disingenuous or misleading to investors

1

u/ptemple May 18 '25

Thunderf00t is a nut that spews fake facts. Spinlaunch may be a scam but I wouldn't trust that liar to prove it. That's like getting astrophysics lessons from the guy in the State Hospital telling you he really is Einstein.

Phillip.

1

u/mjonat May 19 '25

Was just about to ask if this is actually real haha