I love how their "Market Projection" plot takes a flat rate of nanosat launches and draws an ascending line through it. Data? Data? We don't need to fit no stinking data!Also, since when can you buy an F-15 commercially?
GO has offices in Atlanta, GA and Washington, DC. GO is privately held.
Why not just use an additional solid to bring the payload up point that it would be release by the jet. Surely that would be cheaper than buying an maintaining a supersonic jet for what looks to me like 20 some odd payloads a year.Also, considering that the envelope under the jet is more of constraint than the weight, I wonder if hanging such a vehicle off of the center line of a retired F-14 would provide better clearance and a larger vehicle... The F-14 was designed to carry Phoenix AIM-54 after all.
A lot of supersonic fighter/bomber type jets that can do Mach 2 or better can be had for cheaper than many corporate jets.
Quote from: Robotbeat on 01/03/2012 05:57 pmA lot of supersonic fighter/bomber type jets that can do Mach 2 or better can be had for cheaper than many corporate jets.Like what? MiG-25/31 is the only one that springs to mind as potentially commercially available for cheaper than a large-ish private jet...
Why not just use an additional solid to bring the payload up point that it would be release by the jet. Surely that would be cheaper than buying an maintaining a supersonic jet for what looks to me like 20 some odd payloads a year.
I can think of several answers to this question.The first answer is that it wouldn't be just one solid, it would be "20-some" (or however many launches) solids. Per year. The cost of the aircraft would have to be compared to the total number of solids needed to replace it over the program life, plus any extra costs associated with one or two fixed launch sites, etc..
The second answer is that a fixed launch site would not be as flexible or "responsive" as an airborne launch, in terms of orbit inclination, etc.
A third answer would be that, in times of war, an airborne launch system should, or could, be less vulnerable to attack than a fixed ground launch site.
But can a payload of value to the war fighter be launched on a cubesat?
The Army seems to think so...
Corporate jets can go for up to $50 million (like for a Gulfstream G550). That's more than the unit costs for an F-15 (<$30 million in 1998 dollars), and a used F-15 without functional weapons systems may be much less than that. But yeah, I imagine a fighter from anywhere (if you have corporate backing and aren't just a private individual) may be available for this. Won't make it easy, but still doable if there's a business case.
There's going to be pretty strong forces pushing them to want to design for larger payloads... 150kg to orbit allows you to serve some pretty decent markets... Or launch a whole fleet of nanosatellites at once. Pegasus, if it weren't so expensive, is actually a pretty darned good size for something like this.I'd like to see what sort of payload XCor's microlaunch concept could get to LEO.
Another plane that probably could be had for low cost is the F-111 it has a large payload and a max speed of mach 2.5.
Quote from: Robotbeat on 01/05/2012 02:13 amThere's going to be pretty strong forces pushing them to want to design for larger payloads... 150kg to orbit allows you to serve some pretty decent markets... Or launch a whole fleet of nanosatellites at once. Pegasus, if it weren't so expensive, is actually a pretty darned good size for something like this.I'd like to see what sort of payload XCor's microlaunch concept could get to LEO.Which is a similar concept except it deploys the launcher at Mach 3+ and 120K+ feet, with near zero drag. Plus the carrier plane can also do sub-orbital science & tourist flights.