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)
They also had Burlak with a Tu-160 as mothership.
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.
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...
Quote from: Spiceman on 10/07/2024 07:19 pmThanks 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.
Quote from: Blackstar on 10/07/2024 09:03 pmQuote from: Spiceman on 10/07/2024 07:19 pmThanks 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/
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.
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.
Back around 2016 or 17 there was an AIAA session on air launching rockets and I remember somebody showing a slide listing all the air launch companies that were supposedly developing vehicles at that time. There were a LOT of them. You might guess as to how many of them succeeded.
Most successfull (a relative term obviously) air launch rocket so far has been Pegasus. Except the record is definitively mixed on that one, it wasn't (isn't ? is it still alive ?) really cheaper than the rest of the ELV fleet.
And a few concepts involving MiG-31s, since that plane is pretty fast (albeit the rocket carried can only be tiny).
Some PDFs on the late 2000s French (EADS-Dassault), Rafale-launched "MLA" project, as part of the wider "Aldebaran" european small launch studies. One of the proposal had a rather unique "Trimaran" configuration, to maximize the Rafale's carrying capacity.The PDFs include references to many other small launcher proposals of the late 2000s, and particularly other French airlaunch proposals (CNES/ONERA Daedalus which was designed with a drone twice larger than Global Hawk, and led to the Altair/Eole mock-up a decade later... or the "HORVS" concept of A400M-dropped solid launcher, comparable to the Minuteman air drop test)Also mentionned and notable, but may outside the scope of this thread, is the recurrent (and patented) DLR concept of an "air capture" of a RLV, where a "flyback" First stage would get captured by a probe-drogue system of another plane (here A340), then towed back, like a glider, to its launch site, enabling the removal of airbreathing engines for return to launch sites. The last pdf talks about it.
Quote from: TheKutKu on 10/08/2024 12:49 pmSome PDFs on the late 2000s French (EADS-Dassault), Rafale-launched "MLA" project, as part of the wider "Aldebaran" european small launch studies. One of the proposal had a rather unique "Trimaran" configuration, to maximize the Rafale's carrying capacity.The PDFs include references to many other small launcher proposals of the late 2000s, and particularly other French airlaunch proposals (CNES/ONERA Daedalus which was designed with a drone twice larger than Global Hawk, and led to the Altair/Eole mock-up a decade later... or the "HORVS" concept of A400M-dropped solid launcher, comparable to the Minuteman air drop test)Also mentionned and notable, but may outside the scope of this thread, is the recurrent (and patented) DLR concept of an "air capture" of a RLV, where a "flyback" First stage would get captured by a probe-drogue system of another plane (here A340), then towed back, like a glider, to its launch site, enabling the removal of airbreathing engines for return to launch sites. The last pdf talks about it.Thank you! I was going to see if anyone remembered the trimaran MLA on Rafale proposal.I still wonder if you could do some interesting responsive mil-space opportunities by launching it from a carrier. I suspect to make it of any use you would need to launch with minimal fuel and budget for a buddy tanking from another Rafale.
The problem with a lot of these is that a fighter-size launch platform isn't big enough to carry a rocket with a decent payload.
Kelly Space and Technology hoped to use the results gleaned from the tow test in developing a series of low-cost, reusable launch vehicles. The ultimate plan is to tow a spacecraft off the ground with a jumbo jet, such as a 747, tow it to altitude where it would be through most of the Earth's atmosphere, where they would "light up" the spacecraft's engine(s)as it was released from the tether. That way it would save fuel (and weight), and be more economical than using booster rockets. After attaining orbit, the payloads would be dispensed, and it the "Eclipse” spacecraft would fly back to Earth. Of course no one here at Holloman (or Tyndall) thought much of being towed like a glider in anF-106. The project acquired the nickname "Dope on a rope" when we first heard about it. Mark wasn't very fond of it during his training here, but when he returned after completion of the project, he said he preferred "dope on a rope" to what the NASA folks at Edwards were calling him--"The Drag Queen!" https://www.f-106deltadart.com/eclipse.htm
Quote from: Blackstar on 10/13/2024 08:57 pmThe problem with a lot of these is that a fighter-size launch platform isn't big enough to carry a rocket with a decent payload.+1.Even Stratolaunch, which is the largest existing airplane and designed specifically for air launch, can only lift 250 tonnes to 30k feet. That's enough for ~6 tonnes of payload to LEO expendable
If you want to go to the deep end of air launch... how big of a mothership ? bigger than Stratolaunch ?
AXUMITE was a proposal to launch a satellite off an F-4:https://thespacereview.com/article/4809/1
I’m sure I’ve exchanges messages with Blackstar and others of this before, but the HIAC camera proposed for Peace Jack was eventually replaced with the SYERS camera system for the U2. I mention this as this camera was then adapted to various experimental lightweight IMINT satellites under the TACSAT and ORS (Operationally Responsive Space) programmes.
