Comments on: Air-Launch Paper

By: Randy Campbell

Randy Campbell — Thu, 11 Dec 2008 15:11:03 +0000

Jon;
Late I know, (as usual ) but I just got to read this and noted the following, you wrote:
“By reducing the pressure in the tanks (while also improving the density by quite a bit), you could get a much higher performance system that would allow them to get down to a single-launch for an ‘ISS mission’ (instead of their current two-launch plus rendezvous approach).”

I don’t recall seeing in the paper or anything on the AirLaunch or T-Space sites about two launches to do an ISS mission, was this supposed to be a Lunar mission or am I missing something again? :O)

Randy

By: Jonathan Goff

Jonathan Goff — Sat, 11 Oct 2008 00:26:35 +0000

Paradox,
Sorry about that. The “either” should’ve been taken out. I sometimes rework sentences after I’ve written them, and end up leaving a word in there that shouldn’t be there. Once again, sorry if that didn’t make sense.

~Jon

By: Paradox Olbers

Paradox Olbers — Fri, 10 Oct 2008 23:24:23 +0000

Hi Jon,
You said ” you could get a much higher performance system that would allow them to **either use** a single-launch for a mission (instead of their two-launch approach). ”
But what is the “or else”?

-Paradox Olbers in Second Life

By: john hare

john hare — Sun, 28 Sep 2008 15:19:20 +0000

If it reaches the point that MSS can make money taking their show on the road, some of the earlier GAL methods might make sense. Using the tested C17 interior carry gravity seperation could apply to much smaller cargo craft that are cheaper to operate. A C130 would seem to be less expensive to operate with overcapacity for XA-01. There are even smaller planes with the rear ramps. I’m sure AirLaunch would help with the systems for revenue and hot fire experience.

You could do a series over the great lakes one week and another out of New England the next without licencing new space ports. You might even get paid for assisting tech development that AirLaunch could use.*

*Why yes, I do think about the money first.

By: Gary C Hudson

Gary C Hudson — Fri, 26 Sep 2008 18:05:01 +0000

Couple of quick comments:

1) With respect to the carrier aircraft, a new big aircraft was a budget-buster for us re the COTS bid, but for anybody with deeper pockets, it wouldn’t be. Cost of the new aircraft and the launch vehicle sized for it would be about equal, and therefore the development cost would approximately double. This would be very tolerable in a business case analysis; it just didn’t match what funding was available to us from COTS. Also, the lead time is going to be 4-5 years, and that was a factor in COTS as well.

2) I don’t have any problem with using LH2. There is enough commercial experience with the fluid (it is used in semiconductor fabs, for example) that safe handling procedures are well developed. If one wants to consider LH2, then vapor pressurization tends to fall out of the trade in favor of moderate pressure pumps. That of course tends to push one to reusable engines, and in turn to reusable boosters, upper stages or one stage. While ground launched vehicles tend to optimize with methane or propane, from a density impulse point of view, that is not the case for air-launched, of course. That’s where hydrogen shines.

By: Grif Ingram

Grif Ingram — Fri, 26 Sep 2008 11:33:35 +0000

On the “Secret Projects” forum, someone posted some stuff about an ancient project for a multi-stage launch vehicle dropped from under a Vulcan V-Bomber, which had lots of ground clearance…if only the UK had taken it up…(sigh).
Grif Ingram.