Alternate Satellite Launch Technique

Seems like the G load on the satellite would have to be sustained longer than using a cannon, but maybe it is easier to build and more compact.
 
THX1138 said:
If it works, it will be the ultimate sling!
Look out Goliath, there's a new David in town.
Click to expand...

The rocket is always going to come out tumbling. The nose and tail of the rocket are on different points of the circumference. The velocity of each is going to be the tangent. So the nose and tail are always going in different directions. When released, the rocket will be tumbling at the frequency of the arm rotation.
 
Very true. But what if the throwing arm is ahead of center of gravity with most of the mass forward like an arrow or the likes? And with computer-controlled stability there is a possibility perhaps.

If not, then they could send bowling balls into orbit like a game of space marbles! :ROFLMAO:

Just had a thought. They are basing the idea off of DLGs Discus Launched Gliders. I have one myself. They might be on to something...
I believe that the holding pin is around CG in them. So, we'll see.

Then again, look at Space X and its vertical landing rockets. Science Fiction 70 years ago. Science Fact today. :unsure:
 
Last edited:
THX1138 said:
Very true. But what if the throwing arm is ahead of center of gravity with most of the mass forward like an arrow or the likes? And with computer-controlled stability there is a possibility perhaps.

If not, then they could send bowling balls into orbit like a game of space marbles! :ROFLMAO:

Then again, look at Space X and its vertical landing rockets. Science Fiction 70 years ago. Science Fact today. :unsure:
Click to expand...
I cant see it working. I wonder why they abandoned the supergun after its inventor was killed. I could actually see that working.
 
Christine Wheelwright said:
The rocket is always going to come out tumbling. The nose and tail of the rocket are on different points of the circumference. The velocity of each is going to be the tangent. So the nose and tail are always going in different directions. When released, the rocket will be tumbling at the frequency of the arm rotation.
Click to expand...
Perhaps that was a relatively easy problem to solve by taking advantage of the predictable wall of air the capsule hits immediately and appropriately shaped airfoils. Especially if the capsule is released at an appropriate skewed angle in the first place, it would stabilize like an arrow does.
 
THX1138 said:
Yes, but they did not land back on Earth with vertical rockets. The moon has a lower gravity and no atmosphere compared to Earth.
You know that good sir.:)
Click to expand...
We didn't because it would have been silly to ignore the aerobraking of reentry and the efficiency of parachutes and wings. Rocket landing in an atmosphere is a bit of a wasteful stunt.

My point was that they were making rocket pack landings on earth in the 60s and vertical landings off earth on the first try. Clearly we have been somewhat competent at vertical rocket landings for 60 years.

A cooler system would involve autorotation to a vertical landing with a rotor. But this recent rocket system was designed in the first place for landing in vacuum. And it really isnt any more complicated than maintaining control of a slow accelerating heavy rocket or operating a jump jet.
 
Swank said:
We didn't because it would have been silly to ignore the aerobraking of reentry and the efficiency of parachutes and wings. Rocket landing in an atmosphere is a bit of a wasteful stunt.

My point was that they were making rocket pack landings on earth in the 60s and vertical landings off earth on the first try. Clearly we have been somewhat competent at vertical rocket landings for 60 years.

A cooler system would involve autorotation to a vertical landing with a rotor. But this recent rocket system was designed in the first place for landing in vacuum. And it really isnt any more complicated than maintaining control of a slow accelerating heavy rocket or operating a jump jet.
Click to expand...
I agree and I understand your points too.

Advancements in science (or anything for that matter) require the mastery of the basics in order to solve a complex problem. (Not always true I know.)
But, could you imagen the sight of a Saturn 5 1st stage coming back down and doing a vertical landing in the 70's?

Or taking the command and lunar modules and slinging them into space in the first place? Historically not correct, and I doubt a human would survive that at the needed speeds too. Best left for satellites and the such.
 
THX1138 said:
But, could you imagen the sight of a Saturn 5 1st stage coming back down and doing a vertical landing in the 70's?
Click to expand...
If it was fueled and had landing struts - yes. What do you think kept the Saturn V vertical when it is only moving very slowly after the gantry detaches? Gyros and gimballed nozzles. If there had been a reason to fly and land a Saturn V vertically, I think they could have. They just had no reason to.

The main issue being the limited authority the gimbals have - they can only correct for so much over-center. Secondary upper attitude thrusters would be necessary if there was much side motion.
 
A slingshot I suppose is at least better than the tech devised by the Zambian Space Programme in the 60s: a huge rubber band to be tied between two Msasa trees to launch the Moon ship - two dustbins welded together - into orbit.
 
Christine Wheelwright said:
The rocket is always going to come out tumbling. The nose and tail of the rocket are on different points of the circumference. The velocity of each is going to be the tangent. So the nose and tail are always going in different directions. When released, the rocket will be tumbling at the frequency of the arm rotation.
Click to expand...
I do not believe that a rocket is needed. There is no need for a long tube containing propellant; there is only need for a little aerodynamics to reduce air resistance, perhaps some heat shielding, and a tail for stabilization. There is also likely a need for some maneuvering jets to place the satellite in its final orbiting position. By not having a force at the bottom of a long tube pushing it upward, simple, passive techniques for maintaining orientation can be used -- simple drag on the tail perhaps coupled with rifling to provide spin on the vertical axis.
 
Swank said:
Seems like the G load on the satellite would have to be sustained longer than using a cannon, but maybe it is easier to build and more compact.
Click to expand...
Probably the G force would make it unworkable. I just ran a calculation. At 5,000 mph with a radius of 1 mile (2 mile total diameter), the centripetal acceleration is 317 Gs. Reference: SpinCalc
 
Airborne platform, suspended from balloons - that could work in my mind, with tiny satellites. Vertical centrifuge. Fun thought experiment.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Thread starter Similar threads Forum Replies Date
Jo Zebedee Alternate opening Critiques 10
D (Found) Alternate dimension of human-appearing predators Book Search 3
T (Found) Personal portal to alternate history world Book Search 4
M (Found) Building a society in an alternate world after death Book Search 3
Pliable Moose (Found) 1960-1970? Alternate dimension Book Search 5

Similar threads


Back
Top