3 ms·

Orbital Sciences, now Northrop Grumman, has successfully used plane launches for the Pegasus a few dozen times since the 90s. They use a Lockheed TriStar inste

Orbital Sciences, now Northrop Grumman, has successfully used plane launches for the Pegasus a few dozen times since the 90s. They use a Lockheed TriStar instead of a 747, but the principle is the same. It definitely works. Their launch volume has been trending down though. I don't think they're able to effectively compete for most contracts.

ianburrell 4y ago
There are other small-sat rocket which are cheaper. The Rocket Lab Electron is $7.5 million for 250kg while Pegasus is $40 million for 450kg. Plus, SpaceX has piggyback program for small sats that is cheaper but longer wait.
jojosbuddy 4y ago
Yes, launch stage was pretty bulletproof, 2nd upto the liquid stage were the problems (should be fixed by now that the tech exists). The systems are likely the same as 2005 that new VC funded launch companies can undercut price with updated designs/tech (R&D expenses absorbed by VCs). I think the telemetry live stream/OpenGl viz of the last minotaur launch looked like a slightly revised UIX of the original live stream tool I built back in the 90s (I worked on Pegasus), aka old tech, not shiny. Edit: Really it's a potential energy to cost problem. 5% more efficiency is [actually] big when leaving this planet, but yes, cost of air launch is still stuck in 1990 times. From the outside I didn't see any innovation from the VO team aside from electronics. As for VG, I used to work with their new CEO and Eng VP: they know ops, but I thought the systems/tech hadn't been flush out 100%, so may have the similar fate if a few customers start canceling. I have some ideas to 'fix' air launch requiring big R&D, but knee deep in fixing autonomous drones! Peg was not financially successful cause prior 2002, the space race was maybe 15 launches a year: not profitable. Stuff like Iridium failed, shutting down ideas of having thousands of sats in LEO, mind that the only markets were communications (cellular/fiber won), science experiments, and imaging (imaging/remote sensing? Drone tech will eventually win). Luckily LEO payloads are a cool idea again-- tech is better + moore's law, thus demand is HOT. Heck Orbcomm is up there today, but old tech no one really wants. Today, Elon played the long game (2002) and kept innovating where SpaceX has found the cost-benefit balance via reusability, and [with timing] being the only system post Shuttle it's a duopoly with ULA--charge as much to stay in the black. BUT the markets are still the 3 above, nothing new (Elon's Mars thing == passion project) though every country now wants their 'own constellation' cause of the NRO, hehe. Trivia Edit: Peg's GNC computer was an 80386SX :)
- panick21_ 4y ago
  That rocket close to as much as a Falcon 9 now cost.
SonicScrub 4y ago
It definitely works. But whether the it works economically compared with the traditional static ground launch is the question. Pegasus is simply more expensive than it's ground based competition.
trollerator23 4y ago
Even Antonio Elias, the person behind Pegasus and main designer, admitted that it didn't work out at all the way they predicted. You had the complication and rigmarole of launching from an aircraft but you still had to launch close to a range for comm and safety reasons.

ianburrell 4y ago

There are other small-sat rocket which are cheaper. The Rocket Lab Electron is $7.5 million for 250kg while Pegasus is $40 million for 450kg. Plus, SpaceX has piggyback program for small sats that is cheaper but longer wait.

jojosbuddy 4y ago

Yes, launch stage was pretty bulletproof, 2nd upto the liquid stage were the problems (should be fixed by now that the tech exists). The systems are likely the same as 2005 that new VC funded launch companies can undercut price with updated designs/tech (R&D expenses absorbed by VCs). I think the telemetry live stream/OpenGl viz of the last minotaur launch looked like a slightly revised UIX of the original live stream tool I built back in the 90s (I worked on Pegasus), aka old tech, not shiny. Edit: Really it's a potential energy to cost problem. 5% more efficiency is [actually] big when leaving this planet, but yes, cost of air launch is still stuck in 1990 times. From the outside I didn't see any innovation from the VO team aside from electronics. As for VG, I used to work with their new CEO and Eng VP: they know ops, but I thought the systems/tech hadn't been flush out 100%, so may have the similar fate if a few customers start canceling. I have some ideas to 'fix' air launch requiring big R&D, but knee deep in fixing autonomous drones! Peg was not financially successful cause prior 2002, the space race was maybe 15 launches a year: not profitable. Stuff like Iridium failed, shutting down ideas of having thousands of sats in LEO, mind that the only markets were communications (cellular/fiber won), science experiments, and imaging (imaging/remote sensing? Drone tech will eventually win). Luckily LEO payloads are a cool idea again-- tech is better + moore's law, thus demand is HOT. Heck Orbcomm is up there today, but old tech no one really wants. Today, Elon played the long game (2002) and kept innovating where SpaceX has found the cost-benefit balance via reusability, and [with timing] being the only system post Shuttle it's a duopoly with ULA--charge as much to stay in the black. BUT the markets are still the 3 above, nothing new (Elon's Mars thing == passion project) though every country now wants their 'own constellation' cause of the NRO, hehe. Trivia Edit: Peg's GNC computer was an 80386SX :)

panick21_ 4y ago
That rocket close to as much as a Falcon 9 now cost.

SonicScrub 4y ago

It definitely works. But whether the it works economically compared with the traditional static ground launch is the question. Pegasus is simply more expensive than it's ground based competition.

trollerator23 4y ago

Even Antonio Elias, the person behind Pegasus and main designer, admitted that it didn't work out at all the way they predicted. You had the complication and rigmarole of launching from an aircraft but you still had to launch close to a range for comm and safety reasons.