The 1950's Jet Launching Tiny Satellites
1–10 of 19 posts
Re: The 1950's Jet Launching Tiny Satellites
#2Very cool. Would be nice to know how much they charge for one cubesat, and how high orbit they can shoot one to (and how long the cubesat stays there)
Re: The 1950's Jet Launching Tiny Satellites
#3The company: http://cubecab.com/technologies.html
Also check out http://generationorbit.com and of course pegasus https://www.wikiwand.com/en/Pegasus_(rocket)#/Launch_profile
Are there others pursuing air-launch?
Re: The 1950's Jet Launching Tiny Satellites
#4These planes seem like they would be good candidates for a fly-by-wire conversion, or at least a redesigned Starfighter II.
Probably not practical, since they don't bank-n-yank well, but they would sure look cool :-)
Re: The 1950's Jet Launching Tiny Satellites
#5Very cool. Would be nice to know how much they charge for one cubesat, and how high orbit they can shoot one to (and how long the cubesat stays there)
Hopefully, these little satellites fly low enough to fall down in a few years, rather than becoming space-spall fodder.
Re: The 1950's Jet Launching Tiny Satellites
#6Very cool. Would be nice to know how much they charge for one cubesat, and how high orbit they can shoot one to (and how long the cubesat stays there)
My recollection is that normal cubesats generally don't have any propellant (as they're usually hitchhiking on larger payloads) so that combined with their tiny size, the orbit is not going to be sustainable for long.
Re: The 1950's Jet Launching Tiny Satellites
#7The company: http://cubecab.com/technologies.html Also check out http://generationorbit.com and of course pegasus https://www.wikiwand.com/en/Pegasus_(rocket)#/Launch_profile Are there others pursuing air-launch?
One more link here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12415755
Re: The 1950's Jet Launching Tiny Satellites
#8Aside from the acres of hyperbole in this article: getting to the bottom of this article, this approach seems strange to me. Why bother with the F104? Feels like you'd want to maximize speed-at-cieling and weight-to-ceiling for an air based rocket launch. Something like a MiG-25 could take a heavier rocket much faster at the same altitude (Mach 3.2 vs 2.0 for the F104).
Re: The 1950's Jet Launching Tiny Satellites
#9> Less than a decade after test pilot Chuck Yeager first broke the speed of sound, it became the first jet to fly more than twice the speed of sound.
Flying faster than the speed of sound has physical significance, because there are major changes in the way the air and the plane interact as you pass the speed of sound.
If there anything physically significant about twice the speed of sound, or is that just special psychologically?
Re: The 1950's Jet Launching Tiny Satellites
#10Aside from the acres of hyperbole in this article: getting to the bottom of this article, this approach seems strange to me. Why bother with the F104? Feels like you'd want to maximize speed-at-cieling and weight-to-ceiling for an air based rocket launch. Something like a MiG-25 could take a heavier rocket much faster at the same altitude (Mach 3.2 vs 2.0 for the F104).
I would be willing to bet an economic externality such as the cost and availability of Starfighters and crews. Especially for what appears to be a US based company.