Past air-launch rocket proposals

[Blackstar]

I could not find a relative thread in the history section. However, I know we have discussed the proposal to air-launch from an A-12 OXCART (i.e. Blackbird), B-1 bomber, and B-58. I cannot find those threads. This is a proposal I just discovered for air-launching from an F-102.

[catdlr]

Here are some other concepts:

Rocket Air Launch Concepts

and current plans from StarFighter Aerospace

[leovinus]

AFMC did a feature of the B-70 Valkyrie.It also was planned as a ballistic missile launcher. Also at TWZ
https://www.twz.com/37793/all-the-crazy-proposed-variants-of-the-b-70-valkyrie-super-bomber

[leovinus]

https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=58473.msg2611520#msg2611520

[leovinus]

North American XB-70 and X-15 Delta
https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=33527.0

[Spiceman]

Re: F-102 proposal.
-Talk about doing the complicated way
-Just for a suborbital rocket

[Blackstar]

I should add that one of the first ones, which was actually developed, was NOTSNIK. I may have the official history of that program somewhere.

[leovinus]

Is it on-topic to discuss older programs in this thread? Like BOMI from Dornberger? Hypersonic vehicles which launched or dropped stuff or both.

[deltaV]

Maybe it's too obvious but the Pegasus program (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northrop_Grumman_Pegasus) has launched three air-launch rocket models, namely the original Pegasus, XL upgrade, and hybrid. It's hard to launch something without proposing it first so there were presumably Pegasus proposals.

[Spiceman]

There has been so many of them ! A good starting point might be to categorize concepts by aircraft motherships.
-balloon
-bombers ( = B-52)
-cargo transport ( = An-124)
-airliner (= 747)
-supersonic fighters ( = Phantom or smaller)
-supersonic medium bombers ( = F-111 to B-58 and SR-71, up to Tu-22M)
-very large supersonic aircraft  (not many of them: B-70, Concorde, Tu-144, B-1, Tu-160)

Air launch basic rule of thumb  (from research done by Marti Sarigul-Klijn, 20 years ago)

- At an altitude of 15,250 m, a rocket launch with the carrier vehicle having a zero launch velocity ( 0 m/s) at an angle of attack of 0° to the horizontal experienced a Δv benefit of approximately 600m/s. The zero launch velocity situations can be used to represent the launch from a balloon as it has no horizontal velocity.

-while a launch at a velocity of 340m/s (= Mach 1)  at the same altitude and angle of attack (zero degree) resulted in a Δv benefit of approximately 900m/s.

-Furthermore, by increasing the angle of attack of the carrier vehicle to 30°, same 340m/s ( = Mach 1), resulted in a Δv gain of approximately 1,100m/s.

-Increasing the launch velocity to 681m/s ( = Mach 2)  and 1021m/s (Mach 3) produced a Δv gain of 1600m/s and 2000m/s respectively

-Ascent to orbit with drag, gravity and steering losses is 9300 m/s.

[laszlo]

There has been so many of them ! A good starting point might be to categorize concepts by aircraft motherships.
-balloon
-bombers ( = B-52)
-cargo transport ( = An-124)
-airliner (= 747)
-supersonic fighters ( = Phantom or smaller)
-supersonic medium bombers ( = F-111 to B-58 and SR-71, up to Tu-22M)
-very large supersonic aircraft  (not many of them: B-70, Concorde, Tu-144, B-1, Tu-160)

For cargo transports, don't forget the C-5A launch of a Minuteman 1/B in 1974.

[Spiceman]

Yes ! Spectacular. In the early 1990's the Soviets (soon to be russians) had similar concepts involving an An-124. Throwing a large liquid-fuel rocket from the back with a parachute. Ukraine might have been involved, because Antonov and because R-36 / Tsyklon rocketry - formerly Yangel rocket shop.

They also had Burlak with a Tu-160 as mothership. And a few concepts involving MiG-31s, since that plane is pretty fast (albeit the rocket carried can only be tiny).

Dassault had a project like that involving a Rafale, very much a french ALASA (that fared no better, in passing).

Then there are concepts where the mothership is a bizjet.

[JetProp]

They also had Burlak with a Tu-160 as mothership.

Book "Launch vehicles. Spaceports" S. Umanskii.

[JetProp]

In the early 1990's the Soviets (soon to be russians) had similar concepts involving an An-124. Throwing a large liquid-fuel rocket from the back with a parachute. Ukraine might have been involved, because Antonov and because R-36 / Tsyklon rocketry - formerly Yangel rocket shop.

It is a project of Goverment rocket center named by Makeev. Launch vehicle "Polyot" (flight). It is from the book "SKB-385...".

[Spiceman]

Thanks you very much for that. I'm really interested in the An-124 concept. How heavy was the rocket, for what payload ? liquid propulsion has better performance than solid, particularly advanced Soviet engines. But is sloshes, and this can be hairy...

[Blackstar]

Thanks you very much for that. I'm really interested in the An-124 concept. How heavy was the rocket, for what payload ? liquid propulsion has better performance than solid, particularly advanced Soviet engines. But is sloshes, and this can be hairy...

I was just reminded of a project in the 2000s called AirLaunch. If I remember correctly, the propellant load was propane, which was (am I wrong about this?) heated. It would be carried in a C-17. There were lots of problems with the concept.

[Eric Hedman]

Thanks you very much for that. I'm really interested in the An-124 concept. How heavy was the rocket, for what payload ? liquid propulsion has better performance than solid, particularly advanced Soviet engines. But is sloshes, and this can be hairy...

I was just reminded of a project in the 2000s called AirLaunch. If I remember correctly, the propellant load was propane, which was (am I wrong about this?) heated. It would be carried in a C-17. There were lots of problems with the concept.

The Airlaunch website is still up and running:  https://airlaunchllc.com/

[Blackstar]

Thanks you very much for that. I'm really interested in the An-124 concept. How heavy was the rocket, for what payload ? liquid propulsion has better performance than solid, particularly advanced Soviet engines. But is sloshes, and this can be hairy...

I was just reminded of a project in the 2000s called AirLaunch. If I remember correctly, the propellant load was propane, which was (am I wrong about this?) heated. It would be carried in a C-17. There were lots of problems with the concept.

The Airlaunch website is still up and running:  https://airlaunchllc.com/

Looks like only the main page is up, the rest are dead links. Says copyright 2003-2008.

[VSECOTSPE]

DARPA programs…

SALVO
https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=36753.0

ALASA
https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=34350.0

RASCAL
https://digitalcommons.usu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1744&context=smallsat

https://www.enginehistory.org/GasTurbines/GE/DARPA_s%20RASCAL_%20Status%20Challenges%20and%20Accomplishments.pdf

https://www.f-106deltadart.com/rascalproject.htm

[VSECOTSPE]

I was just reminded of a project in the 2000s called AirLaunch. If I remember correctly, the propellant load was propane, which was (am I wrong about this?) heated. It would be carried in a C-17. There were lots of problems with the concept.

Not propane.  AirLaunch used liquidified natural gas, which is mostly methane with some trace alkanes, water, nitrogen, and carbon.  Same stuff that heats homes.  By contrast, Starship uses refined methane with all those trace impurities taken out.

I don’t know what issues AirLaunch had, but Debra Faktor Lepore, now head of US Space Systems for Airbus, was President of AirLaunch.  Even if she doesn’t want to speak on the record, she might be able to clue you in.

A killer for most/all these air launch projects is that the aircraft require pilots, and you’re putting a big, pressurized, liquid fuel bomb next to them.  It’s a qualification nightmare, even for military aircraft qualified to carry inert solid fuel missiles and unpressurized fuel pods.  Pam Melroy was head of DARPA TTO for ALASA and SALVO and might be able to speak to this or point in the right direction.

Just my personal opinion, but the solution is supersonic (instead of subsonic) staging of solid-fuel upper stages on retired QF drone versions of high performance fighter jets like the QF-16 and QF-15.  Takes the pilot out of the equation, the performance is good enough to get microsats and maybe minisats to LEO, and these things can be stored, handled, and launched as easily/fast as fighter munitions.  If the performance falls short, there are pretty straightforward ways of boosting engine performance on these retired aircraft, as RASCAL  and the ancient F-4 Blackjack project showed the way.