Loading video...

Video Failed to Load

Go Home

Spin Launch: The proposed solution to sending stuff into space without an engine

2,279,093 views • 8 months ago •via X (Twitter)

35 Comments

GH HILL's profile picture
GH HILL8 months ago

From a Physics standpoint, this is a completely retarded concept. Anything you would want to put into orbit would be destroyed by the centrifugal forces.

Misfit Maverick's profile picture
Misfit Maverick8 months ago

....."sending stuff into space without an engine".....👀

Cindil Pindil's profile picture
Cindil Pindil8 months ago

The delivered stuff

Dries Van Langenhove's profile picture
Dries Van Langenhove8 months ago

How many journalists and judges will one of these bad boys fit?

Supreme Grillmaster Vanir's profile picture
Supreme Grillmaster Vanir8 months ago

Imagine one in every city but instead of “Spin Launch” it’s “Remigration Station”

UnitedStatesofStephen's profile picture
UnitedStatesofStephen8 months ago

The inventor…

Doc Possum's profile picture
Doc Possum8 months ago

Sure, all you need is your payload to handle 100Gs. No problem at all.

Tad's profile picture
Tad8 months ago

I'm pretty sure there's an engine at the end of that video.

Batboy Supreme's profile picture
Batboy Supreme8 months ago

The G forces alone would destroy anything they are trying to put in space much less generate the force necessary to achieve escape velocity.

AutummLeaf's profile picture
AutummLeaf8 months ago

oh look another SillyCon valley scam. ipo coming soon. also no engine

DD's profile picture
DD8 months ago

Can we use it for deportation efforts?

Squirrelnut's profile picture
Squirrelnut8 months ago

Oh look we are getting closer to making Contact (1997)

Semi Space Trucker's profile picture
Semi Space Trucker8 months ago

No amount of initial speed will circulize your orbit, you will always need an engine.

Matt Hirschler's profile picture
Matt Hirschler8 months ago

Start-up: Jello-Launch Propellent-free Bowl-to-Moon in our lifetime.

Michael DiMercurio's profile picture
Michael DiMercurio8 months ago

Cute but listen, the G-forces on your projectile would ruin delicate satellite equipment so the payload would have to be designed to withstand that, which adds so much weight that, fuck, you may as well go back to conventional launches. Dumbass.

Me&Doggo's profile picture
Me&Doggo8 months ago

Been seeing this for a while. Have they successfully orbited anything yet?

Xylobits's profile picture
Xylobits8 months ago

@grok ?

Grok's profile picture
Grok8 months ago

No, SpinLaunch hasn't orbited anything yet. They've done several successful suborbital tests (like the 2022 flight with NASA/Airbus payloads surviving 10,000g+), but the full orbital accelerator remains in development. The company pivoted in 2025 to focus on their Meridian LEO sat constellation (280 birds), launching via conventional rockets with service eyed for late 2026.

Grok's profile picture
Grok8 months ago

No, not entirely for electronics—SpinLaunch has tested small satellites (e.g., 1U CubeSats) surviving 10,000g with minor ruggedization like reinforced circuit boards, upgraded aluminum alloys, and adhesives. Off-the-shelf components worked after tweaks, per their 2024 demos and NASA payload flights. For biological material or living organisms? Yes, it largely precludes them. 10,000g would pulverize most cells, tissues, or creatures (humans black out at ~5-10g). No such tests announced; the system targets rugged smallsats only.

💧Waterflame🔥's profile picture
💧Waterflame🔥8 months ago

IRL LOONEY TUNES

4Gt2Hate's profile picture
4Gt2Hate8 months ago

Yeah no. 😂

Igzorn_Buelle's profile picture
Igzorn_Buelle8 months ago

if something ain't aligned right and/or only delayed a fraction of a second at the throw the whole apparatus it would fail catastrophically.

Aluminum Wraith's profile picture
Aluminum Wraith8 months ago

Yeah no. You got a couple of things working against you. atmospheric density vs speed = drag = drag & heating & incredible forces. There's a reason we have to throttle down rockets even in the upper parts of the atmosphere for max Q. Can't expect to go faster than that in denser atmosphere realistically without crazy structure and thermal protection which adds weight and takes away any useful payload capacity.

just me R2's profile picture
just me R28 months ago

Lame as Fuck look into inertial mass reduction and the failed audits of the pentagon and DOE in regards to the Secret Space Program this you posted here is just sad BS garbage

falangetta777 ✟ 🇪🇸's profile picture
falangetta777 ✟ 🇪🇸8 months ago

can it throw immigrants?

Nohairdontcare's profile picture
Nohairdontcare8 months ago

Astronauts like

loudog's profile picture
loudog8 months ago

This would be a fantastic launch system for lunar material extraction.

Dr. Tarzan's profile picture
Dr. Tarzan8 months ago

There are some minor mechanical challenges with this. I mean, if you are an engineer. If you are a dreamer, then happy days.

Jess's profile picture
Jess8 months ago

@TheDealTrader_ Well humans wouldn’t be able to board the craft like that! Too many G’s!!

@Daveleveraction's profile picture
@Daveleveraction8 months ago

I'm wondering how you compensate for the loss of mass after the vehicle is launched?

TheSmallestMinority's profile picture
TheSmallestMinority8 months ago

@TinfoilTricorn Cool. But you have to audibly project a loud “weeeee” as it is launched. Otherwise I can’t approve.

Nothing But Good's profile picture
Nothing But Good8 months ago

Cool concept but what payload can survive that amount of G’s and still work post launch? Seems like a very small % of satellites would work.

Nstig8r's profile picture
Nstig8r8 months ago

They haven’t launched anything in three and half years. What happened?

Unix's profile picture
Unix8 months ago

We invented rocket engines nearly a century ago. Why would anyone want a vehicle with no propulsion?

💥 Nurse D, RN/1L's profile picture
💥 Nurse D, RN/1L8 months ago

I’ve been seeing this clip for at least 5 years. Is it actually happening?

Related Videos