blackstar said:Now the idea of air launch continued for awhile, and it still continues today in various forms. But it turns out that air launch does not provide a great increase in performance. The increase is only on the order of a very few percent (probably no more than 2-3 percent, I'm guessing). But there are other limitations, like the fact that if you get ready to launch and something goes wrong, you cannot simply recycle and try again, you probably have to return to base and try another day. (Other limitations include the size of the payload.) And so the question is if that small percentage increase is worth the other limitations.
gtg947h said:Well, there are other considerations than performance. You have more flexibility with inclination, weather, and launch windows because your launch site can move. Also, depending on the launcher and the launch vehicle, you can get away with "secret" launches, at least to some extent (you're hidden from ground observers, at least).
airrocket said:The main impediment to air launch is mostly mental and having balls to go do something that is not main-stream.
airrocket said:The main impediment to air launch is mostly mental and having balls to go do something that is not main-stream.
blackstar said:If the performance improvement was so obvious, somebody would have the courage to do it. But 50 years of spaceflight indicates that this just doesn't add up to a qualitative improvement.
blackstar said:If the performance improvement was so obvious, somebody would have the courage to do it. But 50 years of spaceflight indicates that this just doesn't add up to a qualitative improvement.
FutureSpaceTourist said:blackstar said:If the performance improvement was so obvious, somebody would have the courage to do it. But 50 years of spaceflight indicates that this just doesn't add up to a qualitative improvement.
Of course there have been a number of fully re-usable spaceplane HTHL TSTO designs/concepts over the years (although none were ever built ).
I assume though that the choice of aircraft came first - for perceived ease of re-usability etc - resulting in air-launch being used, rather than an expected significant performance gain from air-launch driving the use of aircraft?
quellish said:Apparently QC is a real impediment right now
http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story_generic.jsp?channel=aerospacedaily&id=news/asd/2010/03/24/02.xml
CFE said:Really enjoyed the series or articles so far. The new pic from Archipeppe is really tight!
CFE said:Really enjoyed the series or articles so far. The new pic from Archipeppe is really tight!
blackstar said:I'm going to wrap all of these up into a print article for future publication.
XP67_Moonbat said:If somebody can isolate just the article, that'd be awesome. Thanks.
RobertWL said:Hopefully this isn't against the rules but.. This is my shot at isolating the article. Didn't turn out too bad.
RobertWL said:Hopefully this isn't against the rules but..
XP67_Moonbat said:Guys,
I had a little flashback from my childhood today, called up Google, and voila. PopSci from Dec, 1982. Go to PAGE 120.
FutureSpaceTourist said:The little I've found on MAKS origins is now captured in http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,6654.msg92133.html#msg92133.
blackstar said:On that site there are at least a half dozen English-language versions of Russian technical papers on MAKS.
[...]
I have not gone through them carefully, so I haven't yet answered my question on the origins. I seem to remember that the overview document was missing some key details, such as when it started and who was pushing it, etc.
hesham said:a very strange space shuttle carrier aircraft,it was the Boeing
Model-747 with anther fifth rocket engine,mounted at the rear
of its fuselage
FutureSpaceTourist said:I don't think it's that unusual as a proposed way for the carrier aircraft to pitch up prior to separation, so that the space vehicle doesn't have to make a 90-odd degree turn to the vertical.
See both the quoted text and first picture in http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,295.msg92417.html#msg92417 for one discussion of this. I'm fairly certain I've seen other mentions elsewhere on SPF - don't have time to search for them right know (and hopefully someone else has a better memory than me!).