Author Topic: Starfighters Inc. F-104 - new satellite launcher (Read 15470 times)

Bubbinski · « **on:** 05/25/2011 02:18 pm »

This is pretty cool - looks like the F-104 Starfighter might soon become a satellite launcher. Starfighters, Inc. is flying out of the shuttle landing facility with F-104's and they're developing a rocket to launch nanosatellites into orbit from the F-104 at 60,000 ft +.

Here's a link with more info:

http://www.nasa.gov/centers/kennedy/news/starfighters.html

Rocket Science · « **Reply #1 on:** 05/25/2011 02:45 pm »

Quote from: Bubbinski on 05/25/2011 02:18 pm

This is pretty cool - looks like the F-104 Starfighter might soon become a satellite launcher. Starfighters, Inc. is flying out of the shuttle landing facility with F-104's and they're developing a rocket to launch nanosatellites into orbit from the F-104 at 60,000 ft +.

Here's a link with more info:

http://www.nasa.gov/centers/kennedy/news/starfighters.html

No, really cool, love that plane!:)
Thanks for the link
Regards
Robert

Gene DiGennaro · « **Reply #2 on:** 05/25/2011 02:47 pm »

Hey why not rivet that small booster onto the tail of the F-104? It's the return of the NF-104 astronaut trainer!

Zed_Noir · « **Reply #3 on:** 05/25/2011 03:07 pm »

A truly un-realistic idea. Those old Starfighters are known as Widowmaker for a reason. Nevermind that you will need reaction control systems on the Starfighter for it to be operating above 50 thousand feet.

bad_astra · « **Reply #4 on:** 05/25/2011 04:58 pm »

I realize they already own two or more Starfighters, but seems like it would be cheaper, and safer, to launch a nano-sat by renting Proteus.

kevin-rf · « **Reply #5 on:** 05/25/2011 05:27 pm »

I wish them the best, that is an awesome out of the box solution for nanosats!

simonbp · « **Reply #6 on:** 05/25/2011 07:15 pm »

Quote from: bad_astra on 05/25/2011 04:58 pm

I realize they already own two or more Starfighters, but seems like it would be cheaper, and safer, to launch a nano-sat by renting Proteus.

Proteus can't do a Mach 2 zoom climb to 60,000 feet.

Also, the rocket itself is apparently the size of AIM-7 Sparrow, so no need for something the size of Proteus.

Rocket Science · « **Reply #7 on:** 05/25/2011 07:27 pm »

There was never anything wrong with the F-104 to earn the bad reputation of the "widow maker". It was due to trying to use an intercepter in the role of ground attack. With an already high wing loading to begin with, it was never designed with all the ordnance that was hung under her razor sharp wings in the first place. One of the best zoom climb aircraft ever. I'd love to get my hands on her controls...

reflector · « **Reply #8 on:** 05/25/2011 07:41 pm »

Great idea. I don't understand why NASA never instituted a program like
this. The idea of coming up with a small satellite launcher launched from
a modified jet is a great idea. I hope they are able to find some market.

I checked their website and there is no information on their plans for this,
so this might be an idea rather than a funded project, but I hope they
succeed.

kevin-rf · « **Reply #9 on:** 05/25/2011 07:42 pm »

Reminds me of the failed NOTS program ( http://www.astronautix.com/lvs/propilot.htm ), though I would assume this new vehicle will overcome those issues with an active guidance system.

Jim · « **Reply #10 on:** 05/25/2011 07:43 pm »

Quote from: reflector on 05/25/2011 07:41 pm

Great idea. I don't understand why NASA never instituted a program like
this. The idea of coming up with a small satellite launcher launched from
a modified jet is a great idea. I hope they are able to find some market.

See Pegasus.

zaitcev · « **Reply #11 on:** 05/26/2011 03:04 pm »

What makers of Pegasus are finding out is that it's cheaper and safer to replace the airplane with another rocket stage. It gets worse as the payloads go down. Developers of Ishim and VG microlauncher could never meet their cost targets. Ishim is particularly instructive here since it was based on a similar type of aircraft (MiG-31). Just from the cost and size basis, among the known air-launch projects, the most realistic one was the QuickReach. There, the airplane reuse was a major consideration. Safety was still not there.

RanulfC · « **Reply #12 on:** 05/26/2011 09:37 pm »

Heh, the Starfighter was NEVER called "The Widowmaker" by pilots that actually FLEW it! It got that "nickname" from the Air Force due to the transition accident rate because it was a very hot ship to fly. If it DID crash the pilot wasn't usually going to survive it for two reasons: It WAS a "hot-ship" with the pilot right there in the nose and huge-honking engine behind him both surrounded by fuel, but more IMPORTANTLY the original F-104 (being designed as a high altitude-high power interceptor aircraft) had a DOWNWARD ejecting seat! Since most "accidents" happened on take off or landing.... Well pulling the red handle tended to ensure the pilot at least made it to the ground BEFORE the aircraft did

(This was 'fixed' in later versions of course)

I note the article didn't mention it but they WILL require a RCS if they plan on "zooming" to 60,000ft but that shouldn't be all that much of an issue since such a system could easily "fit" into the wing-tip tank area.

I'd need to see how they plan to hang the NLV though, from what I recall the F-104 was never actually designed to carry the Sparrow or actually any large missile center-line and hanging it off a wing has other issues.

Nice concept though.

Randy

RanulfC · « **Reply #13 on:** 05/26/2011 09:45 pm »

Quote from: Jim on 05/25/2011 07:43 pm

Quote from: reflector on 05/25/2011 07:41 pm
Great idea. I don't understand why NASA never instituted a program like
this. The idea of coming up with a small satellite launcher launched from
a modified jet is a great idea. I hope they are able to find some market.

See Pegasus.

Pegasus has two issues, mainly being a pretty crappy LV mated with a not-very efficent launch method which is why Orbital has moved to the more standard Tarus model VTO LV.

There is nothing really "wrong" with the L-1011 carrier aircraft but mating it with a aerodynamic "rocket-plane" launch method AND solid-rockets really brings the performance down into the useful for military or government payloads only catagory for costs if nothing else.

The F-104 system is going to get a performance boost from supersonic velocity AND AoA but "size" of carry issues is going to limit its ability greatly. (I highly suspect they will be using solids also so that's another sour point for performance)

Randy

Jim · « **Reply #14 on:** 05/26/2011 09:57 pm »

Quote from: RanulfC on 05/26/2011 09:45 pm

Pegasus has two issues, mainly being a pretty crappy LV mated with a not-very efficent launch method which is why Orbital has moved to the more standard Tarus model VTO LV.

Wrong on both counts

It is not crappy. It is practical and more efficient of it payload class.

No, OSC did not move to Taurus for efficency, it did to meet a contract and to increase performance. The change is no different than Delta II using larger SRM's.

Zed_Noir · « **Reply #15 on:** 05/27/2011 04:24 am »

Quote from: RanulfC on 05/26/2011 09:37 pm

I'd need to see how they plan to hang the NLV though, from what I recall the F-104 was never actually designed to carry the Sparrow or actually any large missile center-line and hanging it off a wing has other issues.

The retired F104S of the Italien AF hanged a Sparrow/Aspide missile from outer wing pylon on each wing. Those hardpoints are the only ones wired for the Sparrow/Aspide missile AFAIK.

Downix · « **Reply #16 on:** 05/27/2011 04:42 am »

Quote from: Zed_Noir on 05/27/2011 04:24 am

Quote from: RanulfC on 05/26/2011 09:37 pm

I'd need to see how they plan to hang the NLV though, from what I recall the F-104 was never actually designed to carry the Sparrow or actually any large missile center-line and hanging it off a wing has other issues.

The retired F104S of the Italien AF hanged a Sparrow/Aspide missile from outer wing pylon on each wing. Those hardpoints are the only ones wired for the Sparrow/Aspide missile AFAIK.

Bottom has two mounts for them as well.

Zed_Noir · « **Reply #17 on:** 05/27/2011 04:49 am »

Quote from: Downix on 05/27/2011 04:42 am

Quote from: Zed_Noir on 05/27/2011 04:24 am
Quote from: RanulfC on 05/26/2011 09:37 pm

I'd need to see how they plan to hang the NLV though, from what I recall the F-104 was never actually designed to carry the Sparrow or actually any large missile center-line and hanging it off a wing has other issues.

The retired F104S of the Italien AF hanged a Sparrow/Aspide missile from outer wing pylon on each wing. Those hardpoints are the only ones wired for the Sparrow/Aspide missile AFAIK.
Bottom has two mounts for them as well.

The lateral fuselage hardpoints can handle the AIM-9 Sidewinder not the Sparrow/Aspide.

Downix · « **Reply #18 on:** 05/27/2011 05:11 am »

Quote from: Zed_Noir on 05/27/2011 04:49 am

Quote from: Downix on 05/27/2011 04:42 am
Quote from: Zed_Noir on 05/27/2011 04:24 am
Quote from: RanulfC on 05/26/2011 09:37 pm

I'd need to see how they plan to hang the NLV though, from what I recall the F-104 was never actually designed to carry the Sparrow or actually any large missile center-line and hanging it off a wing has other issues.

The retired F104S of the Italien AF hanged a Sparrow/Aspide missile from outer wing pylon on each wing. Those hardpoints are the only ones wired for the Sparrow/Aspide missile AFAIK.
Bottom has two mounts for them as well.

The lateral fuselage hardpoints can handle the AIM-9 Sidewinder not the Sparrow/Aspide.

Depends on the model. It likely is the F-104S, which did have Sidewinders on the lateral hardpoints. However, the wings each sported two underwing hardpoints which could fit the Sparrow, which is what I was referring to. In addition, it had a centerline mount under it's fuselage, which could carry a Sparrow, Phoenix,or a nuclear bomb. To fit all this, they removed the gatling gun.

kevin-rf · « **Reply #19 on:** 05/27/2011 12:30 pm »

Didn't some of Svetkoff's F-104's come from Italy?

From the NASA article?

Quote

But parts are hard to find, which is why Svetkoff bought five of the latest model Starfighters from Italy.

Btw, a nice Wiki pic of Italian F-104s with Sparrows: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:F104s.jpg