The 1950's Jet Launching Tiny Satellites | Hacker News Reader

The 1950's Jet Launching Tiny Satellites

bbc.com

58 pointsjcbeard17 comments

The 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

Very 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.

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.

Their website[1] suggests that the price will be around $250,000, in the same ballpark with other launch options. The real selling point is supposed to be quick lead time (months instead of years) and the ability to send payloads with, say, volatile propellants, that other customers would not want close to their satellites.

[1] http://cubecab.com/cubesats.html

> 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?

Aside 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.

As I recall, it's not only a US company but it was founded by a former Air Force F-104 pilot who passed away a couple of years ago. They fly those planes because it's what they are really good at.

The Air Force and NASA used the planes for high-altitude test missions, and so there is some comfort in outsourcing those missions to the company. I've always been under the impression that most of their business was government stuff, but I could be all wrong about that.

that's probably true. I see 4 in the FAA registry. I don't see any MiG 25s but I see 5 MiG 29s in the FAA's US registry.

Even the MiG 29 would get you marginally better Mach numbers (2.2 vs 2.0) and better payload. Plus they were produced in similar numbers as the F104.

A MiG 29 is still on the trailing edge of what's considered state of the art for fighter aircraft. It's essentially Russia's version of the F-16/ F-18. I would imagine that mid-century F-104's would be much more affordable.

How many privately owned MiG-25s are there, and are their owners interested in using them for commercial satellite launching?

They may be using F-104s because there are several in private hands (Wikipedia claims that the FAA says that there are 10 in the US) with owners willing to do satellite work.

The engines of the MiG-25 had a service life of a few hundred hours and no parts have been made in many years. That was one reason that the Indian Air Force had to retire theirs without a replacement.

In contrast J79 engines and parts are available on ebay and knowledge of how to maintain them us fairly common, just check Youtube!

F-104 airframe spares are readily available as well. I don't know if Starfighters has just been in the press lately or what, but I read recently that they acquired a few new planes.

> Why bother with the F104? Feels like you'd want

Both the F-104 and Mig-25 are on the record as being very high-performance, record-setting zoom climb machines. There are some other planes out there that can do a similar job. I believe the F-4, oddly enough, set some records in that area using a slightly modified engine setup (water injection).

The F-15 would sort of be the textbook platform for this: there's a reason they used it to launch ASAT missiles, and you could fly one today with more powerful engines than that eighties-era F-15. On the other hand, part of Starfighter's appeal is that they can do these launches relatively cheaply.

> Mach 3.2 vs 2.0 for the F104

You're comparing a pretty desperate MiG-25 speed to the pursuit speed in the F-104's flight manual. Speed in level flight isn't really the issue here anyhow.

EDIT: Starfighters indicates their Italian F-104s will do Mach 2.2 while climbing: http://www.starfighters.net/fleet/

Lots of good stuff on that page.

These 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 :-)

Reply on news.ycombinator.com