I would like to remind everyone that GPS guided artillery shells experience accelerations on the order of 16000g. If thats typical in use, then you can guarantee they can withstand more than that for reliability.
If we can build electronics to withstand being blasted out of a short 155mm artillery barrel, then Spinlaunch doesn't seem like so much of a stretch.
16000g is more than SpinLaunch's 11000g, but artillery shell has one advantage over SpinLaunch payload. Artillery shells can consolidate all g-sensitive parts to the base and
all the g-forces points towards the base. Whereas,
SpinLaunch's payload centrifugal g is lateral, it acts toward the side, specifically, the side farther from the center of rotation (ie: outer side).
One can of course reinforce the outer-side to take the load, but that will cause uneven mass distribution causing more headaches (added cost), and payload orientation when loaded is yet another issue (yet more added cost). The payload reinforcement cost is why I think SpinLaunch has a difficult time making it's revenue viability goals.
The biggest potential SpinLaunch has is StarLink. StarLink if fully implemented will have 30,000 satellites each with a plan service life of under 5 years due to it's low orbit of just under 350 miles. Do the math, that is
>16 launches a day. That rate makes it a mass-produced satellite. As such, it can have high-g tolerance built in at design and spreading the cost over many satellites. The StarLink low orbit is also a plus for SpinLaunch. Whereas, other satellite are more likely one-off's (or limited copies) making reinforcement (design + test) cost much higher on a per-satellite basis, and the low 350 miles may only work for some of those other limit copies satellites.
My opinion is: SpinLaunch's viability lies with the viability of StarLink and it's ability to add this payload reinforcement cost while maintaining cost-viable. If StarLink fizzles, SpinLaunch is toasted.