5 ms·
The 1950's Jet Launching Tiny Satellites
- dharma1 10y agoVery cool. Would be nice to know how much they charge for one cubesat, and how high orbit they can shoot one to (and how long the cubesat stays there)
- Roboprog 10y agoHopefully, these little satellites fly low enough to fall down in a few years, rather than becoming space-spall fodder.
- Steltek 10y agoMy recollection is that normal cubesats generally don't have any propellant (as they're usually hitchhiking on larger payloads) so that combined with their tiny size, the orbit is not going to be sustainable for long.
- msl 10y agoTheir website[1] suggests that the price will be around $250,000, in the same ballpark with other launch options. The real selling point is supposed to be quick lead time (months instead of years) and the ability to send payloads with, say, volatile propellants, that other customers would not want close to their satellites. [1] http://cubecab.com/cubesats.html http://cubecab.com/cubesats.html
- mLuby 10y agoThe company: http://cubecab.com/technologies.html http://cubecab.com/technologies.html Also check out http://generationorbit.com http://generationorbit.com and of course pegasus https://www.wikiwand.com/en/Pegasus_(rocket)#/Launch_profile https://www.wikiwand.com/en/Pegasus_(rocket)#/Launch_profile Are there others pursuing air-launch?
- mzs 10y agoOne more link here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12415755 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12415755
- Roboprog 10y agoThese planes seem like they would be good candidates for a fly-by-wire conversion, or at least a redesigned Starfighter II. Probably not practical, since they don't bank-n-yank well, but they would sure look cool :-)
- crazytony 10y agoAside from the acres of hyperbole in this article: getting to the bottom of this article, this approach seems strange to me. Why bother with the F104? Feels like you'd want to maximize speed-at-cieling and weight-to-ceiling for an air based rocket launch. Something like a MiG-25 could take a heavier rocket much faster at the same altitude (Mach 3.2 vs 2.0 for the F104).
- hartror 10y agoI would be willing to bet an economic externality such as the cost and availability of Starfighters and crews. Especially for what appears to be a US based company.
- justin66 10y agoAs I recall, it's not only a US company but it was founded by a former Air Force F-104 pilot who passed away a couple of years ago. They fly those planes because it's what they are really good at. The Air Force and NASA used the planes for high-altitude test missions, and so there is some comfort in outsourcing those missions to the company. I've always been under the impression that most of their business was government stuff, but I could be all wrong about that.
- crazytony 10y agothat's probably true. I see 4 in the FAA registry. I don't see any MiG 25s but I see 5 MiG 29s in the FAA's US registry. Even the MiG 29 would get you marginally better Mach numbers (2.2 vs 2.0) and better payload. Plus they were produced in similar numbers as the F104.
- gjdjcjdnxnvjd 10y agoA MiG 29 is still on the trailing edge of what's considered state of the art for fighter aircraft. It's essentially Russia's version of the F-16/ F-18. I would imagine that mid-century F-104's would be much more affordable.
- tzs 10y ago
- tzs 10y ago> Less than a decade after test pilot Chuck Yeager first broke the speed of sound, it became the first jet to fly more than twice the speed of sound. Flying faster than the speed of sound has physical significance, because there are major changes in the way the air and the plane interact as you pass the speed of sound. If there anything physically significant about twice the speed of sound, or is that just special psychologically?
- deleted 10y ago[deleted]