We didn't just inspect the B-52, we flew 6 mission with it! (I was the LPO on missions 1 and 4)B-52 s/n 0008 (good ol' "balls 8") had a large fuselage tank on the centerline as well as tanks on the the wings (but no tip tanks like later B-52 versions). Pegasus was hung from the pylon on the starboard (right) wing. After towing the Pegasus-carrying trailer under the wing, but before attaching the rocket, we transfered fuel to the starboard wing tanks to lower the starboard wing.We then raised the trailer a bit and attached Pegasus to the pylon.Next, we transfered fuel to the port side to lift the Pegasus up from the trailer (we also lowered the trailer bed.)We then took off with more fuel on the port side to balance the Pegasus on the starboard side, making the B-52 weight-symmetric at takeoff.Before drop, we transfered fuel to the starboard side to make the aircraft heavy on the rocket side by about ONE HALF THE ROCKET WEIGHT.When the rocket was dropped, the aircraft became instantly port-heavy by the same amount (on-half the rocket weight). The lateral aerodynamics of the B-52 were more than sufficient to handle these asymmetries. Also, the left-turning tendency was used by the pilot to acheive lateral separation from the release flight path.Before landing, the fuel was equalized so, again, the aircraft was weight-symmetrical.Neat, uh?
I read an item in Space News this week that took me to an Orbital press release back in August that we seem to have missed on this forum:
Quote from: jcm on 09/26/2012 11:22 pmI read an item in Space News this week that took me to an Orbital press release back in August that we seem to have missed on this forum:It wasn't missed: http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=15457.msg947180#msg947180
QuoteDavie OPF - 26/8/2007 11:09 PMWelcome back sir. This is a great Q&A.Interested to hear what you meant by a Delta II replacement? We know there's moves to Delta IVs for commonality of ULA DOD launch service contracts, but a 'new' vehicle? A beefed up Pegasus? Do tell more if you can, sounds intriguing.Orbital's US Government satellite products (NASA and some Defense/Intelligence) are slowly but steadily growing from Pegasus/Minotaur II class to the Minotaur IV/Delta II class. Orbital's market share in this class is, or was, growing.The demise of Delta II threatens this growth. Much like what happened to us in 1987 (we had the idea for what became ORBCOMM, but not a suitable launch option, so we decided to start what became Pegasus) we have started what could become "son of Delta II" (some pundits suggest we call it Epsilon - the next letter in the greek alphabet, but DWT nixed that for obvious reasons.) Orbital is funding this effort at risk - like with Pegasus and Taurus, we do not have any contract or sponsorship to develop it - not even a COTS agreement!Having said all this, I expect a torrent of questions pertaining to its configuration, propulsion technology, etc. The honest answer is that we are still trading options. We are spending several megadollars to proceed to CDR late this year (and, believe me, that buys a LOT of design at Orbital!); if we pass a number of hurdles, we will proceed to CDR in the fall of 2008 for a possible first launch in mid-2010. Now, here's the rub:Any fool can design a profitable EXPENDABLE rocket if it is guaranteed to fly 12-20 times a year (50-60 for a reusable). Any fool can design an UNprofitable rocket that flies 2-3 times a year (well, even so it's not as easy as that, but you get the point.) The hard part is to design a launch product that will BREAK EVEN at 2-3 launches/year!!!Unfortunately, the word "launch product" here includes the industrial infrastructure required to produce all its parts, inventory vs. quantity purchases vs. Letters-of-agreement games, fixed infrastructures, perhaps in more than one location, and possibly within 500 yeards of a vicious, rust-causing salt-saturated moist air, the perhaps small but irreducible number of engineers and technicians who have to be "current" in assembly and flight operations, government permits and customers' expectations of insight and flight assurance, reliability of supply lines that may not have any other customers... OH DEAR! OH MY!! Wouldn't it be wonderful it all that mattered was specific impulse, structural mass fraction, bending modes, lift and drag, shock propagation, acoustic levels and all that?SO: we are NOT ready to unveil a configuration; we are not even ready to assure that come December's PDR we WILL continue the program - we will only do so if we are convinced we can do it for the non-recurring and recurring costs necessary to make it work. It's not a matter of funding; as stated in another forum, Orbital has plenty of cash - more, indeed, than it would be PRUDENT to spend in this development. We are working very, very hard to make the cost numbers work; but is IS hard!I CAN, though, say that the same people that designed, built and flow 52 Pegasus, Tauruses and Minotaurs are going to give it a hell of a try. We have been able to maintain a viable small launch vehicle product line for 17 years with an average of 3 flights/year (see enclosed chart, which only goes to 2006), so if anybody has a chance to pull this off, it's probably us.We are targeting the same payload vs. altitude vs. inclination characteristics of the Delta 7920, it has a liquid (LOX/Kerosene) core and it has a 4 meter diameter fairing. As soon as it is prudent, I will share with you all the vehicle and operational details that ITAR would allow me to post in this forum, including sketches. No yellow ruled paper, though - we use IDEAS.And please, PLEASE, don't call me "sir" (or "Dr.") - reminds me of my age! One of the advantages of having a name like Antonio is that you can be THE Antonio (you know, as in THE Donald?... ) so, if you call me "sir" again, YOU'RE FIRED<sup>®</sup>!!!-----Will design rockets for food
Davie OPF - 26/8/2007 11:09 PMWelcome back sir. This is a great Q&A.Interested to hear what you meant by a Delta II replacement? We know there's moves to Delta IVs for commonality of ULA DOD launch service contracts, but a 'new' vehicle? A beefed up Pegasus? Do tell more if you can, sounds intriguing.
Antonio, when your benevolent overlords give you some free time away from Antares, could you please post your promised next installment "Run Silent, Run Deep," in your story of how Pegasus was developed?And thank you for sharing so generously of your time and knowledge on this forum; it's great to hear straight from the horse's mouth, as it were!