Author Topic: Starfighters Inc. F-104 - new satellite launcher (Read 15471 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

edkyle99 · « **Reply #20 on:** 05/27/2011 04:54 pm »

Quote from: Jim 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.

Not to mention that Orbital didn't really "move" to Taurus from Pegasus. The company launched four Taurus rockets during the 1990s, and four more during the 2000s (not counting this year's Taurus - we're in the "2010s" now!). It launched 24 Pegasus (Pegasi?) during the 1990s and 12 during the 2000s.

On the other hand, the company did launch only one Minotaur to orbit during the 1990s, compared to eight during the 2000s. Some of those Minotaur 1 payloads might have been made to fly Pegasus if Minotaur 1 didn't exist.

- Ed Kyle

Skyrocket · « **Reply #21 on:** 05/28/2011 07:37 am »

This proposal reminds me of the ALSOR (Air launched sounding rocket) concept, where a Viper sounding rocket was air launched from an F-104.

zaitcev · « **Reply #22 on:** 05/29/2011 07:36 pm »

The question is the amount of changes, in ALSOR-like case. Ishim was based on a pre-exising ASAT-like system. Its carrier MiG-31 had to be modified with additional wingtip fins in order to increase the yaw stability at maximum altitude (pictured at trials without the missile).

If it is permissible to modify the airplane, then belly mount like ALSOR is acceptable.

RanulfC · « **Reply #23 on:** 05/31/2011 04:17 pm »

Quote from: Jim 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.

::::sigh::::Whatever Jim...

It IS "crappy" given it turns a solid-fuel (marginal ISP and pretty lowsy overall propellant margin) rocket into a rocket-PLANE and then adds all the various bells-whistles-and-subsystems needed to go from being an airplane to a near-vertical rocket. Oh it "looses" the extra-gear eventually but not until they have already penalized the overall performance. Granted, (as I noted) nobody really KNEW better at the time but Pegasus has proven NOT to be very economic LV overall. That however is NOT the fault of it being air-launched.

As for being "practical and more efficient of it(s) payload class" that is not a very effective argument since it IS just about the only orbital LV with a payload class that small! It never managed to fully capture (or grow) the small payload market because of the expense.

As for the Taurus, why don't we get the facts straight? The vehicle is the full-up Pegasus without its wings and ancillery equipment used for air-launch mounted on a Castor-120 first stage. I like the idea that you have Jim that "OSC did not move to Taurus for efficency" when that is EXACTLY what they did in order to INCREASE the performance (efficency) of the Pegasus to allow for more payload! (Having a contract from Boeing and DARPA to build the whole set up helps a lot)

And of course the entire process is VASTLY different than "adding-SRBs-to-the-Delta-II" since it went from a horizontal lift-supported 3STO air-launched vehicle to a 4STO "conventionally" launched vehicle with a large solid booster rocket in place of the aircraft.

Now if they had "simply" replaced the L-1011 with a JELAC-stage or a POGO THEN you could say it was similar...

Randy

douglas100 · « **Reply #24 on:** 05/31/2011 05:17 pm »

I don't mind constructive criticism, but calling Pegasus "crappy" is an insult to everyone at Orbital who designed and built it. Dr. Elias sometimes posts on this forum. Maybe you could email him and tell him how inferior his vehicle is.

Jim · « **Reply #25 on:** 05/31/2011 08:11 pm »

Quote from: RanulfC on 05/31/2011 04:17 pm

::::sigh::::Whatever Jim...

It IS "crappy" given it turns a solid-fuel (marginal ISP and pretty lowsy overall propellant margin) rocket into a rocket-PLANE and then adds all the various bells-whistles-and-subsystems needed to go from being an airplane to a near-vertical rocket. Oh it "looses" the extra-gear eventually but not until they have already penalized the overall performance. Granted, (as I noted) nobody really KNEW better at the time but Pegasus has proven NOT to be very economic LV overall. That however is NOT the fault of it being air-launched.

As for being "practical and more efficient of it(s) payload class" that is not a very effective argument since it IS just about the only orbital LV with a payload class that small! It never managed to fully capture (or grow) the small payload market because of the expense.

As for the Taurus, why don't we get the facts straight? The vehicle is the full-up Pegasus without its wings and ancillery equipment used for air-launch mounted on a Castor-120 first stage. I like the idea that you have Jim that "OSC did not move to Taurus for efficency" when that is EXACTLY what they did in order to INCREASE the performance (efficency) of the Pegasus to allow for more payload! (Having a contract from Boeing and DARPA to build the whole set up helps a lot)

::::sigh::::Whatever, just another imposter posing as someone with knowledge of spaceflight facts.

Solid launch vehicles are not crappy. They have their place. Not every vehicle is performance driven. As for economic, name one small launch vehicle that is. The airplane gear does not penalize the vehicle anymore than any other method of airdropped vehicles.

Here are the straight facts wrt Taurus.
Increasing the efficiency of a launch vehicle involves changes to propellant types, ISP changes in engines, weight reduction, etc.
Increasing the efficiency of a launch vehicle doesn't not include wholesale swapout of first stages, which makes it a completely different launch vehicle.

Castor 120 for L-1011 is a change in the basic vehicle, it doesn't matter that the upperstages are from a Pegasus. It is a different vehicle and not a more "efficient" Pegasus.

Taurus is no more a Pegasus than a Minotaur II/III is
Just as Atlas Able and Thor Able were not Vanguard launch vehicles

If one were to compare efficencies of launch vehicles, it would not be Taurus vs Pegasus
it would be Taurus vs Minotaur IV vs Athena I
and
L-1011/Pegasus vs L-1011/X-34.

RanulfC · « **Reply #26 on:** 05/31/2011 09:24 pm »

Quote from: douglas100 on 05/31/2011 05:17 pm

I don't mind constructive criticism, but calling Pegasus "crappy" is an insult to everyone at Orbital who designed and built it. Dr. Elias sometimes posts on this forum. Maybe you could email him and tell him how inferior his vehicle is.

If he posts here, I'm sure someone will bring it to his attention

The Pegasus was a "point-design" vehicle built to specific details, paid for by the Air Force AND Orbital. They did the best they could with what they had at the time. They COULD do much better, but it costs and Orbital can't afford it. Recall please that they (Orbital) also built the X-34s specifically to research (according to NASA contract) RLV economics and dynamics. Now that NASA is (possibly) going to allow someone to re-commision and actually fly the X-34s perhaps they can gain some of that experiance.

Quote from: Jim

Solid launch vehicles are not crappy. They have their place. Not every vehicle is performance driven. As for economic, name one small launch vehicle that is. The airplane gear does not penalize the vehicle anymore than any other method of airdropped vehicles.

Yep they are "crappy" overall and while they have their "place" being a launch vehicle and being economical isn't and never has been "one" of them.

A small launch vehicle that is "economical" let me think... Hmmmm, I believe I noted that there AREN'T any so that's not really possible is it?

And yes, the "airplane" gear hurts the Pegusus more than "other" air-drop methods:
http://mae.ucdavis.edu/faculty/sarigul/aiaa2001-4619.pdf

You'd get better performance dropping a wingless-Pegusus out the back of a C-130 on a cargo-pallet the same way we do with the single and two-stage manuever vehicles used for ABM testing!
http://www.govsupport.us/navynepahawaii/Docs/024-DevDemonstrationLongRangeArLauTagSys,EA,Oct02.pdf
url]http://www.crc.com/LRALT.htm[/url]

Again though they were working with what they knew THEN, but we KNOW better now.

Finally I may not be an "expert" Jim but at least I try and stay consistant:
You said initially in comparing the "move" from the L-1011/Pegasus to the C-120/Tarus:

Quote

The change is no different than Delta II using larger SRM's.

I had issues with this comparison but NOW you say:

Quote

Castor 120 for L-1011 is a change in the basic vehicle, it doesn't matter that the upperstages are from a Pegasus. It is a different vehicle and not a more "efficient" Pegasus.

So... it's NOT like "larger" SRMS on the Delta-II now IS it?

Lets get the "facts" straight here in that Orbital itself calls the Taurus "a Ground-launched VARIANT of the Pegusus Launch Vehicle"
http://www.orbital.com/NewsInfo/Publications/Taurus_fact.pdf

They IN FACT used a wingless "Pegusus" in the design to REDUCE the overall work to meet the Boeing/DARPA requirements.

The Taurus IS a more efficent, higher capability Pegusus which is exactly what OSC set OUT to make.

I may not be an "expert" like YOU Jim but I DO try and gets my facts straight.

BACK on "subject" if the F-104s can be "refitted" with something like the original "GENIE" launch racks (which extended the missiles out and away from the aircraft prior to ignition) the aircraft then could take the majority of the "load" for the zoom allowing a more efficent LV to be carried but the limit is still going to be the ground clearance.

Overall it looks like around 20 inches or less diameter for the LV and probably around 6 feet long.

Randy

simonbp · « **Reply #27 on:** 05/31/2011 10:17 pm »

Quote from: kevin-rf on 05/27/2011 12:30 pm

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

Heh; that shows just how big the Sparrow is relative to the F-104. The aircraft must noticeably jump up when it release the missile...

Jim · « **Reply #28 on:** 05/31/2011 11:54 pm »

Quote from: RanulfC on 05/31/2011 09:24 pm

[quote author=douglas100 link=topic=25260.msg749257#msg749257

1.Lets get the "facts" straight here in that Orbital itself calls the Taurus "a Ground-launched VARIANT of the Pegusus Launch Vehicle"
http://www.orbital.com/NewsInfo/Publications/Taurus_fact.pdf

2.They IN FACT used a wingless "Pegusus" in the design to REDUCE the overall work to meet the Boeing/DARPA requirements.

3.The Taurus IS a more efficent, higher capability Pegusus which is exactly what OSC set OUT to make.

I may not be an "expert" like YOU Jim but I DO try and gets my facts straight.

1. I guess you are swayed by simple marketing blurbs vs facts

2. The facts are that it doesnt reduce the overall work

3. Higher capability does not equate to higher "efficiency"

Jim · « **Reply #29 on:** 06/01/2011 12:21 am »

Quote from: RanulfC on 05/31/2011 09:24 pm

Quote
The change is no different than Delta II using larger SRM's.

I had issues with this comparison but NOW you say:
Quote
Castor 120 for L-1011 is a change in the basic vehicle, it doesn't matter that the upperstages are from a Pegasus. It is a different vehicle and not a more "efficient" Pegasus.
So... it's NOT like "larger" SRMS on the Delta-II now IS it?

The comparison to Delta II SRM's was counter your inaccurate use of the word efficiency. Using the same type of propulsion system but only making it larger is not increasing efficiency whereas changing the propellant composition to one of higher ISP in the same casing is.