Virgin's Orbit's Failed Rocket Launch & The History Of Air Lauched Rockets To Orbit
Вставка
- Опубліковано 25 тра 2020
- We don't know much about what happened, beyond that the engine lit for a few seconds before shutting down and terminating the flight, But I did think it was worth talking about the history of Air launched Orbital class rockets and how they're neither new, nor easy, but still cool technologically.
- Наука та технологія
The best phrase ever,
While seriously analyzing rocket failure:
"Several seconds, that's more then a couple or a few, but less than a lot, so it's about 4 seconds"
it is "...i'm gonna say..." not "...so it's about..." and I agree it is amazing.
guesstimated like an engineer haha
It is "than"! Then is a timeterm!
Maria Sirona yes it is, but it’s just a UA-cam comment.
"...and that's of course ignoring the 2016 explosion of a SpaceX rocket on the pad because it wasn't in flight at the time, although the payload did fly technically for a couple of seconds as it fell back to the pad."
xD Thank you, Scott Manley, for your unwavering dedication to the importance of detailed journalistic accuracy.
If you want to be _really_ pedantic, that payload was actually in orbit! The trick is getting it into an orbit which doesn't intersect the ground...
Does freefall constitute a flight?
@Lifecraft well that's technically all an orbit is. Only with a proper one, for some weird reason you keep missing the ground...
@@AttilaAsztalos Falling with style.
to borrow from Monty Python: it didn't so much fly, as plummet.
Came for KSP, stayed for EVE, and am still here cuz of this.
Dude! Same bro 👊
I just came for Scott
More EVE content needed!
Came here for KSP, enjoyed elite content, like the rocket science stuff but dearly miss KSP content
Jimmy It’s still his name in Twitch!
I was one of the technicians on the super stripey launch, and remember watching the launch live with the group of physicists etc. that built the ORS4 cubesat.
I thought to myself as the rocket started to spin around " That is no good." I can now say I have popped my aerospace cherry and successfully failed forward.
I did an unauthorized failure analysis report on the Super Strypi launch. The faring and payload started breaking apart at T+33 seconds into the flight. Over the following 7 seconds 6 objects were observed separating from the vehicle. Two of the objects appeared to be CubeSat related. At T+40 the ACS lost control and the vehicle went from a stable spin into an external torque-induced precession attitude. The upper stages and payload breaking off T+57 seconds into the flight.
Failure is part of the development process
More true now than ever with commercial spaceflight - government programs had better work the first time, and every time, (lest they be demonized in the court of public opinion) but a business can afford to fail and ignore public opinion, allowing an iterative approach to development. It all comes down to how much it costs and the value of success
If you aren't failing you aren't trying hard enough.
John McNaught so says SpaceX... so say we all.
let's hope that SpaceX's first astronauts aren't part of that "development Process".
yeh but virgin has yet to have any success at all. Failure is fine so long as progress is being made, and some of us doubt virgin are making any real progress.
Can I just say what an amazing educational resource your channel is? My head is full of space trivia and some deeper knowledge, but every one of your videos seems to dive into some little corner of science/engineering/history that's all new to me, and your straightforward presentation makes it easy to forget how much research must go into your content. Each one of your videos is a treat, and I get genuinely excited when I see a new one.
(And, on top of all that, your bookshelf has Iain [M.] Banks front and center...)
Being a Scot living in Canada hearing Scott Manley reporting in detail on all things space is just a delight. Thank you sir and Lang may your rocket reek.
Being Scottish, what are your feelings about the Sutherland Spaceport?
I was able to see it from the California coast. It matches perfectly with Scott's description. Saw the contrail while under power. Then nothing. Then a flash with a flame pointed up and an object going down while trailing fire for a couple seconds before going poof in a black cloud of smoke.
So they did a destructive abort vs a parachute recovery? Weird.
@@mgabrysSF normal for a failed rocket.
You do not want big mostly intact rockets landing then blowing up on impact.
@@mgabrysSF LauncherOne doesn't have parachutes, or does it?
Virgin Orbit released their blog post last night and said the rocket didn't explode, instead falling to the ocean
@@peregrinedevelopments3730 Yes, but in how many pieces?
F-104 "A plane that wants to be a rocket" Yep
What the heck was that clip that looked like it was taking off with a solid booster?
@J M that's crazy I love it
J M ahh yes, Jet Assisted Takeoff Assisted Takeoff
@Evilmike42 Because the Lockheed symbol is a star? I mean, that's why there is the P-80 Shooting Star, the Constellation, the C-5 Galaxy, the F-94 Starfire, and many other examples. Sorry, just saying. ;)
@@Hyperlooper Starfighters had a rocket assist. Look for the video in which Chuck Yeager crashes an F-104.
Used to come for the KSP videos, but I've stayed for the stories, history, and news like this!
Same, I absolutely love his latest content. Helps there is a lot of exciting stuff going on in space both from private and government organizations.
04:48 Quite coincidental that the F-4D launch aircraft for the Navy's first air-launched rocket bears the tail number "747"...
Yes, and significant of nothing. That is the "Modex Number" or informally the Side Number used for Mode II IFF tracking on radar.
F4D-1, actually. "F-4D" is a version of the Phantom II designated later in a revised system.
Dear Scott. Just for information, there is a company named surprisingly enough “Starfighters”, based at Kennedy Space Center operating from the former shuttle landing strip. They have a number of refurbished F104’s . Not exactly fully await of all of their plans but they put on quite the loud show taking off from the SLF.
4:03 looks like my rockets in KSP
The RD-701 engine could actually ran kerosene AND hydrogen simultaneously to produce an ISP of 415 sec. Getting that much performance improvement out of kerosene just by adding a bit of hydrogen is pretty wild! That engine was really something special.
Interesting. I wonder what percentage they used and if it could keep a decent TWR at that ISP. I'll have to do some research later.
Wow. That´s impressive. I didn´t know that, thank you. Interesting.
2:00 holy cow, debris picked up by weather radar. What a time we live in where we can get data like this.
Maybe it was the cloud of unburned propellant looking like a wet rain cloud to radar?
@@RCAvhstape Or perhaps the cloud of burned propellant actually being a rain cloud on radar
Space shuttle Columbia debris made a very prominent display on weather radar. Wind turbine farms also present a near continuous signal on weather radar.
l have flown the F-104 Starfighter....The wings leading edge are stainless steel and are so sharp it will cut you.....Thanks Scott...!
Anyone lookijg for their own f-104 just go to west germany with a shovel
@@MozTS don't talk to me like that your not my pastor
The plane had a nice name in Germany: Witwenmacher - widow maker. Out of 900 F104 300 were lost, over 100 pilots lost their lives. I remember these days when they went over the land at low altitude, creating the sonic boom. Plane crushes were reported at least once a month. Besides the technical difficulties this was a very capable aircraft, but no way to fly it safe.
@@adamabele785 every other air Force besides the Germans flew it safely
But the body of the aircraft is aluminium riveted to aluminium to frames idiot !
Space is hard, dudes
Of course it's hard. There's a solid dome there, duh.
I think we hae a flattie amongst us... :-)
Richard has the money for space experiments but begged the UK Government for money to fund his airline.
@@Historyfan476AD and then isnt paying for lost employees because of COVID
@@cosmonautbilly9570 It is true.... The twit said ORBIT is hard.... hahaha. Thank you for correction!
My guess is their fuel pump went out...same thing happened to my truck this afternoon. :)
Fun fact, rockets typically used "gas" turbines to pump the fuel, so it's like a jet-powered fuel pump
Do you think the guys at the local fix-it shop have a loaner that can get to orbit until at least Thursday when the parts come in, or maybe Friday when they can get it changed out?
Probably not, I guess. Bummer.
Wow! The three of us!?
Did the truck crash into the ocean???
@@laprepper Huh, I wonder if the shop has a spare APU (little jet engine) I could use instead of the dinky little electric motor that only lasted 15 years...
Yay I was hoping I would get a video from you soon. Thanks for the extra work you do for us on youtube, very thankful for your insight and video content :)
Glad to hear Burt Rutan mentioned ,thank you Scott
Was waiting for this! Although like i said on twitter, i expected it in the doom robe.
Too darn hot for the robe
@@scottmanley Uh-oh. We're lucky it wasn't even warmer. ;)
No air con Scott?
I can't wait to see American astronauts launched from American soil on American built rockets narrated by a youtuber with a Scottish accent!
And weather permitting, streaming live , on Scott's channel, courtesy of Reds Rhetoric and Astronomy Live.
Its down to hours now!
And demonstrated with green alien rocket simulator game
SpaceX are going to live stream.
Nasa are going to live stream.
NasaSpaceFlight are going to live stream
Everyday Astronaut are going to live stream.
SpaceXcentric are going to re-stream
What About It? are going to re-stream.
Damn... I am going to need 7 monitors to have them all in fullscreen and I only have 1...
You only have to wait one more day 😁😄😂😂
Interesting bit about the F-104 that I read in Chuck Yeager's autobiography, they did modify them to have a rocket engine as well as a jet, and they actually flew them to the edge of space. The results of that program informed the S-turns the shuttle did to bleed off speed during reentry, and probably also fed a lot of data into the X-15 program.
Thanks for bringing back the classic intro with the rocket.
Always great reports, thanks.
At some point Branson gotta face reality........rocket science is hard.
Rocket Science is relatively easy. Newton had it figured out, and Tsiolkovsky and Goddard provided the punctuation.
Rocket Engineering - making it actually work - that's what's hard.
@@peterstickney7608 yup. Putting all that knowledge into something reliable is extremely hard, which is why it's been pretty incredible to see how well space-x got it together on a "shoestring" budget compared to someone like ULA.
Also as Scott mentioned, a liquid powered air launch with enough delta-v to get to orbit is extra hard mode. I'm betting the solid rocket version & many less moving parts will be easier to start out with.
He could start by using a dildo and observing the reciprocal motion physics
How hard can rocket science be, anyway?
Rocket surgery even harder :P
Thanks Scott for the interesting report. You do a great job of covering the space launch events.
so glad you talked about this I was really wondering how that launch went
NOT GOOD !
Did you tighten those fuel lines?
I thought you did?
What about when the airforce launched a Minuteman ICBM out of a C5 Galaxy in the 70s?
Not an orbital rocket
That was a ballistic missile hence the name intercontinental ballistic missile aka ICBM
@@scottmanley oh did they not actually put it in orbit? I read that it was successful?
Interesting tho that no one else has tried to set up a mid-air vertical launch as they did.
@@Atreid3s How did they fit a vertical minuteman inside a mostly horizontal cargo plane?
But this guy did it with a red plane. And better publicity
Mr Manley, you make content faster than I can keep up. I just missed 2.. Thanks!
Let's hope it's just a minor issue that can be easily fixed so we can see Cosmic Girl and those Orbital class rockets soar again soon.
If this channel has taught me anything it was either that they had their staging wrong or not enough struts.
I see you don't watch "Things Kerbal Space Program Doesn't Teach." series of videos. ;)
I'm sure this question has been answered many times in the past, but I don't know the answer yet so I'm going to ask anyway: Instead of carrying a rocket on the underside of a big heavy jet airliner, why not just strap some jet turbine engines to the first stage of the rocket to act as boosters? The ring of jet turbines could be jettisoned once the rocket reaches Mach 1, and then parachute to the ground. Even if the Mach 1 limiit means the jet turbines are only providing thrust for a few seconds, every second that a rocket can gain altitude without needing to carry oxidizer to run its engines is worth dozens if not hundreds of extra kilograms of payload capacity. Oxidizer is heavy stuff.
Thrust to weight ratio of jet engines doesn’t support vertical launch, which means building a plane that takes off horizontally with wings.
Probably not enough thrust to go vertical, and if that means going horizontal with wings, then might as well make it a plane (as a carrier)
Do you mean strapping jet engines onto the first stage of a rocket? If so, the first problem is atmosphere. Jet engines need air for thrust, so at higher altitudes they're not as efficient. For frame of reference, the ISS orbits ~250 miles high, while most planes don't fly above 10. Second of all jet engines are weak in comparison to rockets and may actually reduce overall thrust due to the increased aerodynamic drag. Thirdly, even if you dropped off the engines in a way to achieve maximum efficiency, you still have to carry a bunch of now useless hardware through the rest of the first stage
Their trying to do it on the cheep. Trying to put up a small satellite in the 10 million mark. Rather than the 100 millions it takes now. You could do what you are suggesting, but at that cost you could just call space x to launch your payload.
@@scottmanley: the F-15 can accelerate in a vertical climb, so yes it is possible to build jet turbine engines that can fly vertically. It just isn't done often, because flying vertically is seen as the domain of rocket engines.
"Although the payload did fly for a couple of seconds as it fell back to the pad." You're a treat!
Thanks for the explanation on the small engines to settle the fuel, I recently had an "hold the phone" moment on fuel tanks and reignition in 0 G :D
In your air-launched rocket history review, you left out the USAF work to air-drop ICBMs from either C-17’s or C-5’s. I think the MX was tested for air drop.
The F-104 Starfighter. Still relevant today. Flying since 1958. We knew how to build shit back then.
Wasn't the first iteration - doomed from being underpowered until later versions remedied the problem - delivered as target livery for nuclear tests? Unless I'm remembering the wrong plane from the (highly recommended) book 'Skunkworks' - it survived the heat blast because it was unpainted and reflected the blast.
It was nicknamed "Widowmaker" and "Flying coffin" in Germany: 300 out of the Luftwaffe's ~900 F104s were lost in crashes and over 100 pilots died. The early versions were plagued by numerous technical problems, some of them quite severe. Add to that corruption in the procurement process.
Ahhhh, yes the F104. Designed by nazis liberated after WW2.
@@christopherbiggs4019 No.
Fascinating.
Greetings from Munich, Tom.
Thanks for the News and the History Lesson.
4:25 Wow! I thought it was a big deal when an F-15 launched a suborbital anti-sat weapon in 1985 - but it was decades after these guys wanted to go orbital! And the next 1950s program was an anti-sat one - when there were barely a couple of satellites in existence.
All these years I always thought it was the Pegasus (early version?) that was launched from a F-15. Didn't know about later versions.
@@johnknapp952 You can get a better idea of the size of a Pegasus by checking the one on the truck in the video - Pegasus is pretty big.
The F-15's ASAT was based on the SRAM - Short Range Attack Missile - an Air-Surface beast that was carried by B-52s (A dozen or so), and FB-111As (6) that, when in its normal role, flew fast enough that it provided all of its lift from its body. (No wings)
I didn't know about the 1950s ASAT program, but I will make an educated guess that it used a nuclear warhead. Because 1950s. Will have to look that up...
Opened up UA-cam thinking “man I wish Scott Manley has a new video”.
Guys what do I do with this new found power now?
Think "I wish Virgin Orbit released a video of the launch attempt" please.
Wish for a nominal mission for Bob and Doug tomorrow!
Repeat after me - "Man, I wish there were White Castles in Australia."
I’d go with vodka, bewbs, and hot yummy sammiches. But I’m a simple man.
Wish away the stupid coronavirus.
very smooth and well done... 👍🏻
That was most informative. Thanks.
Man those Vulcan Bombers look great. Love me some delta wings.
The Vulcan was going to mount two SkyBolt missiles, one under each wing. The later production batches of Vulcans had the mounting points in the wings, which proved useful for mounting other things during the Falklands conflict,
I really want to see the F-104 launcher work.
Nice Job Scott !
This is amazing content.
At the :14 second part there is a still of the failed launch. There appears to be some debris well behind the rocket but on the same track. Couple of white puffs.
That a bit homophobic and racest
Damn! Didn't know the f104 starfighter was still flying! Must be some other countries still using it or many in the parked storage out west. Visions of the movie the right stuff😀
there is also one in south africa,part of the,i think,biggest fighter jet fleet on private hands.
you can take a ride for a few thousand dollars,12k if i remember right.
There's a company here in Florida that uses them for flight testing and similar research support stuff.
@@peterstickney7608 glad their not being used for target practice drones like some old war birds out west.
all the exciting space news has been a bright spot in an otherwise crappy few months!
My theory?
The rocket started from a high subsonic velocity and then likely tried to initiate a steep climb. This resulted in a transverse airflow, which is a situation we have little data (as far as I know) about how liquid fueled rockets work. Combustion in bell nozzles usually takes place at specific pressures and mix ratios.
You now have a situation where the rocket is attempting to punch through the sound barrier with transverse flow, which is across the nozzle as well.
Solid boosters are more simple and that is the reason why military projects have used them far more so, but I also think any experiments involving liquid fuel would have hit this same obstacle up and until you got to launching off the back of the SR-71, which could fly high and fast enough to allow a more linear burn and acceleration to orbit.
I'm basically arguing that "the flame blew out" - and it sounds just dumb enough of a reason to be correct, as most things tend to go.
Very interesting analysis.
4:04 I'm concerned they let it spiral out of control for that long.
10seconds? thats longer than my average KSP flytime xD
"ullage burn" is the technical term for a weak burn to settle the fuel in the tanks. (I love technical words!)
If you want to fly safe, I recommend staying away from the F104 Starfighter. Not sure I'd trust a payload with one of those things.
But back on topic, thank you for another wonderful video! This is a really interesting history of air launched rockets.
Looking forward to tomorrow's launch.
Watch for the subscriber boom after the SpaceX Dragon launch tomorrow.
Goofy Newfy I hope the subscribers boom, but the rocket does not!
@@InventorZahran the landing of stage 1 will definitely go boom
no booms tomorrow!!!
are there any pole dancers in it !
Failure is occasionally expected, and part of the process. However, when it comes to Virgin specifically, their failures seem to set them back for YEARS. I have confidence that they will continue working on... something. And I have confidence that Richard Branson will declare that something will happen "soon". But I have no confidence that we'll get an actual working product.
Branson needs to if you ask me focus on the companies he already has got going. Virgin Media and Virgin trains could do with some serious funding, virgin media is actually getting to expensive and being rude to costumers. I mean this guy has money to burn on space projects like asked the UK Government to fund his Airlines luckily he got told no.
This video was not holding my interest much until the history part; fascinating, TY Scott for all your research. How do you manage to get all the old documents and videos?
Honestly, it’s just stuff I picked up over the years and never forgot. I realized we didn’t have much to talk about and threw in a history lesson because I wanted to talk about other projects.
will you be streaming DM2 tomorrow?
Are propellant settling thrusters the same as ullage motors?
Sure sounds like it.
There are F104 Starfighters that are privately owned. They perform at air shows. I have some nice pictures of them performing.
My favorite thing about these air launched systems is that keep very cool retired aircraft in service. I hope the Stargazer finds work and stays airworthy, as well as the F-104 system.
There was a time the US Air Force was launching ICBM's out of cargo planes!
@paula They don't have to - it is only half-Earth to the farthest point you may want to strike. In fact, if any ICBM ever has a capability to go to orbit, I'd assume it is a bad design - instead of this extra capability they should have taken an extra 300kT warhead or two.
@@vladimirdyuzhev uhh... Pretty sure that's actually the case. People forget both Gemini and Mercury rockets in the space program were developed from ballistic missiles. Take the warheads out, put a slightly lighter payload in, like a capsule, and it should have the energy to reach orbit. Anybody who plays KSP knows there isn't that much difference in deltaV between a suborbital launch to the other side of the planet, and a circular orbit.
Well, they did that once. interesting concept. I wonder if the idea had been to keep the planes on the ground and scramble them in the event of an attack, or constantly keep them in the air so that the missile force never could be attacked?
@@vladimirdyuzhev The Atlas missiles used on Project Mercury, and the Titans used on Gemini, were both ICBMs. It's just a matter of payloads mass.
Are we going to space today? No. We're not going to space today.
2:45 Well, the rocket _does_ ignite in zero-g as it's as much in freefall as something in orbit is. Its freefall just doesn't last as long when left to its own devices. As we have seen.
Penny Lane not so true, rocket is in microgravity due to air friction, so I guess all fuel is at the front.
Cosmic Girl and Stargazer, like new characters in a super hero movie!
Well
....
Let's see spacex do well tomorrow 👍
I wonder what the 747 crew egress plan is for an on-wing failure.
D Pattison Ejector seats?
@@InventorZahran Ejecting the wing. (Well, certainly it is not a good idea to land with this thing still under the wing.)
There wasn't one.
Yeah, having your rocket engine 'hiccup' because it sucked up a gas bubble is definitely A Bad Thing.
The fundamental problem with air launch is that launching a spacecraft into orbit involves reaching such enormous altitudes and velocities that giving it a boost using an airplane makes very little difference compared to launching it off the ground, it's not worth the trouble.
Hold my 2015 CRS -7 Failure. @3:50
That happened before the Super Yuppie (Or however you spell it.)
Would it be possible to use bladders in the tanks for these fuels?
Bladders with cryogenic propellants ? Nope.
@@tomf3150 Oxygen and Hydrogen would be super cooled, but don't they use kerosene and LOX for the first stage? I was thinking something similar to the pressure bladder used for home water systems in the kerosene tank(s).
@@michiganengineer8621 LOX stands for liquid oxygen.
Interesting stuff. It does sound like the engine choked due to fuel flow. I hope Virgin may any investigation public.
Always sounds like great idea to save the first 10km trip and associated weight but somehow incredibly difficult. If they can have a plane that can pull to be almost vertical at the release that might make it work.
What about SARGE? That one was reusable. yes it was suborbital but it did have a failure last year
Too many suborbital stuff to bother. Only true orbital air launches worth it.
It seems like VG is chasing an out-of-date goal with out-of-date ideas.
Nah, it's the future. Using turbofan engines in lower atmosphere is very effective, so it should be done this way.
@@AntonBrazhnyk ehh... Speaking as a jet engine mechanic, using jet engines for part of a rocket launch isn't inherently cheaper just because they're more fuel efficient. The problem is a lot more complex than that.
In defense of VG, I actually think it's an idea worth revisiting. One of the biggest issue is that, short of using the stratolauncher, an aircraft is simply not capable of putting much payload mass into orbit.
However, small launch vehicles like, for example, Rocketlab, are suddenly becoming a much more profitable idea thanks to the advent of satellite miniturization. Microsats are likely to become a much more common payload in the coming decades.
The key advantage of this technology is its ability to launch practically anywhere, into any orbit, without worrying about airspace or overflying land or such. Also, by launching at high altitude, it is less prone to the weather conditions at the exact moment of launch.
The drawback is the low payload capacity, but there's still some room for further development (both enlarging the rocket and miniaturizing the satellites), should the advantages prove useful.
@@andyyang5234 Very good analysis.
One slight correction, Scott--you said that the Pegasus doesn't use Thrust Vector Control (TVC) on its first stage, with its movable tail fins doing the steering during the first stage's burn. That is correct for nearly all of the first stage burn, but during the last few seconds (when the surrounding atmosphere has become too thin for the tail fins to provide effective control), multiple (two or three) small solid rocket motors--mounted in the root of each tail fin--are ignited, and they provide TVC via the movements of the fins. They are movable-nozzle TVC thrusters, which are pointed as needed (the *entire* solid motors, in this arrangement) by the tail fins, in which they are mounted.
Thanks! Always happy to learn something new!
this video made me realize my memories are messed up - I wa almot certain the crs 7 failure was in 2017 or something but it was 2015
You missed the F-15 launched ASAT weapon, it's a rocket.
It’s not orbital. But you should watch my video in it.
@@scottmanley
It destroyed a satilite that was in orbit. It still isn't considered an orbital rocket?
@@bbeen40 no, it couldn't achieve orbit. It could fly in a ballistic arc to intercept something in orbit though.
@@bbeen40 ASAT missiles are generally not orbital; they don't have the velocity to achieve orbit and don't need to. They just need to toss themselves in front of an oncoming satellite (with great precision) and the huge velocity of the collision does the rest.
@@RCAvhstape
Thank you both!
What is all the interior space of Cosmic Girl used for?
Bransons ego just about fits in there.
@@christopherbiggs4019 No it's used as a dance hall
I believe the technical term is "it done went 'splodey".
The Vulcan is already an extremely cool plane in general, and incredible to witness in person, but now you're telling me it was nearly an orbital launch platform? Bruh.
It's really late at night and reading the title gave me a stroke
Ah, confused it with Demo-2, did you?
i’m a plane that wants to be a rocket
Chuck Yeager and others had a varient with a rocket attached for altitude records back in the day.
As a Brit, I naturally wish Branson and Virgin well. I met him several times back in the 80s when he set up Virgin Atlantic in the building I was working in back then. Nice guy, very chatty and down to earth, although an awful taste in sweaters! But the thought of what all this cost rankles a bit when many people working for Virgin Atlantic, like my wife, are due to be made redundant to "save money" due to Coronavirus. She's been there 10 years, worked incredibly hard (many, many extra hours unpaid), been very loyal as was offered a job elsewhere last year for a higher salary but turned it down to stay at VA, is the main wage earner in our house (but only on a modest salary) and has little chance of getting another job. We'll be homeless by Xmas. She cannot sleep with the worry (neither of us can). It just seems a little unfair when people are being cast aside so enthusiastically to "save money", yet money's no object when it comes to other things like this. I guess people are just numbers at the end of the day and nobody thinks about the repercussions suffered by others as a result of the decisions they make. Please, no abuse - I'm just sounding off and venting to try to reduce some of the stress.
I totally understand, but to be clear this is a separate corporation and he’s not the only investor. The money was invested years ago, and it would be illegal for him to take cash from this to prop up other properties.
air launched orbital rockets is difficult .. it looks simple but has a long history of failures.
it's difficult but dont give up 💪🏽
"Technically" a New Zealand rocket? Come on, bro. Credit where credit is due.
Rocket Lab is in every official sense an American company. But you can't ignore how connected they are to New Zealand.
@@philb5593 I'm pretty sure Rocket Lab is only an American company because of ITAR so they can carry US Govt payloads. The heart and soul of the company is in New Zealand. The company was founded in NZ by Kiwis and the original rockets and the first launch facility were all built in NZ.
When the launch is successful it's a New Zealand rocket. When it fails, it's the Americans'.
As a Kiwi who helps manufacture electron, it's almost certainly a NZ built rocket. Components of it are manufactured in the US but the actual building / assembly is done here
@@somerandomnification They do build their engines and control systems in America.
I understand that air launching allows the company the ability to launch bigger payloads with smaller/cheaper rockets but this seems so dangerous to me, I honestly believe that if this effort continues, eventually we will see the loss of the 747 and the crew aboard it, a pretty steep price for an "unmanned" orbital booster.
With SpaceX and Blue Origin among others developing fully reusable orbital boosters and vehicles, it seems like this will soon be priced out of the market anyway, even if it is successful.
I hope I'm wrong, but this just seems an incredibly risky way to launch unmanned cargo, especially when there are other providers that can offer similar services at similar prices without the risk to human life that this system does.
Very interesting as always. The Stratolaunch guys should build a shuttle for people to fly on the largest (wingspan) aircraft in the world. There would be a lot of passengers willing to fly I'm sure.
Video Suggestion: An explanation of launch windows & why they're important.
Because if you leave the window open on launch, you lose all your air. (Grinning and ducking and running)
I love the f-105 starfighter so much. Such a shame it likes to kill its pilots
It killed pilots who really weren't ready for it. The New Luftwaffe tried to go Mach 2 and keep its QRA commitment to NATO at the same time, but it added up to pilots being put in the aircraft with insufficient training. At the same time, the Germans were pushing the plane to limits the designers had never even dreamed of (Mach 1.3 at low level with the tip tanks on), and when you do that sort of stuff, something's going to give.
Such a shame for Virgin Galactic, let's hope for a more successful launch next time 😕
Virgin Orbit was spun off as a separate company from Virgin Galactic several years ago, so this is not a failure for VG, although I'm sure they are commiserating with their former colleagues.
@Scott Manly
Do you have any idea what the duration of the launch window for this launch is? I have been trying to find out and can't get any answers.
If you mean the Virgin orbit test, it was open ended. They were just trying to get to orbit, it didn't really matter where. If you mean the Demo-2 mission, it was instantaneous, either they launched at 4:33:33, or they didn't.
A Vulcan-launched Diamant! I wish they'd built that, it would have been a sight to see!
It's all part of the process but this is an embarrassing failure. I feel bad for the team. They will get it in the end though.
Been watching Scott’s channel for years! Always trust the information he provides. He has inspired me to start my own channel, check it out for more videos about rockets, space ect from a physicist :)
Will check it out!
Wish you would have talked about Reaction Engines/ Sabre. Would have loved to hear your thoughts!
4:05 new KSP update is looking good