@@woodywood1951 It depends what the military payload does. GPS was introduced as a military system. However, the civilian sector massively benefited from it, and I wouldn't want to miss it nowadays. ;-)
My brother in law is an astrophysicist at Penn state.. his research team is constantly on the hunt for cheaper launches.. with the payload space at a premium on the larger rockets this type of launch system is the future of small payloads .
This last Thursday night (March of 2023) I attended a presentation at Embry-Riddle Aviation University in Prescott, Arizona by one of the alumni who retired from the Air Force and went to work for Virgin Orbit as a pilot. His Power Point presentation was interesting but your video was ENTHRALLING! Keep up the great work, LOVE your videos in all aspects!
I was flying a glider on the day Cosmic Girl was ferried from MZJ in Az to Victorville in California. Had a beautiful front quarter view of her as she climbed thru 9000 MSL as she overflew El-Tiro Glider Port AZ67. Her wake turbulence gave me a slightly more than gentle nudge. A very memorable flight.
I really feel like this is the most exciting time for space travel since the 60s. There’s so much innovation going on and it’s positive that it’s no longer relying on governments.
Other than applying modern materials and computer technology, I myself can't see much actual "innovation" here. All the modern rocket companies are heavily based on work done by NASA in the 60's.
Actually the legendary B52 that carried the first rocket planes and provided the platform for placing the first successful commercial payload insertion, had significant advantages over even the B747. Built to very demanding standard of the first military bomber to carry the first hydrogen bombs, and has design features that remain classified to this very day. However much was reviled by a recent BBC report in part “It’s incredible,” says Stemm, “that the aircraft had enough surplus lift and wing area that they could make a substantial cut in it without having an effect on the aircraft sizeable chunk missing from the wing and the special adapter to hold the spaceplane, this special B-52 (also known as the NB-52A) also boasts unusual markings along the main fuselage. Where some aircraft might have representations of the planes they shot down or the bombs they dropped, this has pictures of X-15s - each signifying one of the 80 missions flown by this particular B-52.” While some may not understand certain maneuvers involved by the mother ship. One of the few that is rarely mentioned is the gravity hole created (that is a kind of dip then upward pull ) executed prior to launch that provide additional power to the thrust vector. Tho this small fact is seldom mentioned, it was a factor in our early ballistic trajectory equations. The particular B52 carried a number of features that reinforced points on the wing to allow a maximum load, an aerodynamically enhancement that was unique to its mission.
Great video as always. When talking about the economics about everything in your video. For me a phrase came to mind, "keep it simple stupid". What we learn with the space shuttle programs, having things too complex creates more issues. Eventually one day we'll have the space plane that would be able to launch from a conventional Airport and go all away to the Moon or Mars. But until then having virgins type space launch system, seems to be a more economical way of doing it for smaller payloads. But putting up a very large payloads, until technology increase. We have to rely on conventional rockets like Space X is doing. I am hopeful for space travel, as long as we have people all over the world concentrate their energies on space, and not waste their energy on petty squabbles trying to control each other. I know that's a pipe dream, but maybe one day that will happen, I'm looking forward to it. Cheers to you Dion
@@777jones Add Rocket Lab to that list. Their rate of innovation is incredible. From Electron to Photon to Proton all in a matter of years, not decades. Aerospace giants don't innovate as quickly because there's no financial incentive to do so when governments are willing to shower them with cost-plus no-bid contracts.
Nice video of virgin 1 with clear explaining of its progression historical reaching space and penetration of space depth...thanks for sending good luck for virgin orbit
I cannot say enough that I love your videos so much. Especially your accent is interesting and makes it different. Anyways w Very well done and please please please continue your videos. God bless. Many thanks
Orbital Sciences (and now Northrup Grumman) has been doing this with their Lockheed L-1011 launch platform for nearly 20 years. The L-1011 launches the rocket from 39,000 feet. The L-1011 has provisions for a spare engine to be carried under the wing as well. Virgin is late to the party. 747 is as well.
Yup, he mentioned that in the video, but thanks for saying it again. He also explained how this is different, and why this is likely to be _successful_. and not a failure like last time. No one suggested this was some novel new idea that had never been tried. Dont worry, no one was trying to belittle your precious L-1011, so you can stop with the 'MY plane did it first and so its better, so nah-nah to you!' routine.
Thank you for uploading. I had the chance to view a rocket launch in 2018. Unbelievable experience. I shared a pretty cool video of the trip to my page.
Here in Oscoda, MI we have got the winning bid to do the horizontal launches for Space-X. Few years ago I was in Lancaster, CA and saw the first Virgin Galactic plane. Such a awesome field to work in. Very good, informative vid.
The 747 with extra engine blew my f-ing mind. There should be a warning before you play that image saying: "Prepare to trip out if you're high" which I was btw.
Considering how many ex-SpaceX people are working on this project, it is not surprising that the engine and the rocket have so many similarities to Falcon-1. It is interesting that LauncherOne and Falcon-1 are the same size and weight, and use the same fuel, but Falcon-1 can launch heavier payloads from the ground than LauncherOne from the air. It is counter-intuitive that launching from the airplane did not increase, but in fact *reduced* the payload. I assume that to allow the fueled rocket to be carried under the wing of the airplane, the structure of the rocket had to be made much stronger and therefore heavier, comparing to the rocket launched vertically from the ground. This weight penalty seems to be greater than the gain from the altitude and velocity of the air-launch.
Since you are doing rockets and rocket families more and more often, may I request a video of the Titan family of launch vehicles? Quicke the interesting story.
A large part of the size and weight of a rocket is used lifting it the first 10-20km, through the thick air. A rocket launched from 35,000ft can be a quarter of the size and cost for the same payload.
Except its not an air-to-air missile, so....what? Yes, it looks like a big missile, but planes carry all sorts of missiles, AAMs, AGMs, ASMs, ARMs, ASATs, etc.
Launch a spaceship from a mother aircraft? Gerry Anderson was doing that in the 70's. Now I want to see them mate back with the mother ship to take them home.
The left wing on the B747-400 was re-enforced by design and manufacture to create a test bed for an experimental engine. They showed a clip of a 5th engine mounted under the left wing. It was easy to convert this engine mount to a rocket mount on the left wing.
I personally do see its a good idea to use aircraft to take spacecraft to launch it to space to support my argument What is cost of fuel required to take mothership and launch vehicle to that height as against the cost of fuel taking directly launch vehicle to that height
You seem to like saying the word "subsidiary" mate, quite a few times in this very interesting video. Great work mate!! Just one last point....... what is wrong with Sir Richard Branson? He's an extremely driven individual who injects loads of enthusiasm into everything he does and it's infectious..... according to a friend who works for Virgin Atlantic. If anyone can make this work, it's Branson..... he rarely fails. 🇬🇧🇬🇧✌✌
No, they never planned on carrying more than one extra engine, and why would you want to launch two rockets on the same mission? how common do you think space launches are, anyway? Their target is a couple launches per month, and the rocket is aimed by the plane, and there is little chance of two customers wanting to launch satellites into almost the same orbit at the same time.
I was fairly sure the 747 didn't have a second hardpoint, I briefly worked on the 400 (not the wing), but mainly on the 757 and it had a single hard point for a while (I believe it was removed soon after production started).
Why would they? The project was announced and covered all over the media years before they ever got an actual flying piece of hardware. Anyone who was surprised that Virgin wanted space ship pilots must have been livin under a rock to have missed all the hype and promotion going on.
The rocket drop concept and rocket itself the insert satellites is old proven military technology. When they make a 747 that can fly to the moon and back I will be impressed.
just imagine how much more they could add if they got rid of everything unnecessary on the 747 and made a new craft based off it's wing design and powerful engines
Huh? The 747 is not the limiting factor here, dude. That rocket doesnt even make a 747 break a sweat as it is. If they wanted a bigger, heavier rocket, they could have one without changing the launch plane at all. They chose that size on purpose because it is cheaper and less challenging. When they do develop a larger unit, they could develop an entire purpose built launcher/carrier for the same price as trying to totally rebuild a 747 with an entirely new fuselage. Its not like a 747 has some magic powers that cant be matched by any other machine; they chose the 747 because it was cheap and readily available. What you describe is neither of those things. And trust me, you are not the first one to think 'hey, what if we, like, carried a really BIG rocket up and launched it from altitude?' What do you think the point of the 6-engine, twin fuselage competitor shown in the video is?
@@justforever96 I did not say it was a limiting factor at all. I was thinking in terms of a total redesign that uses the proven 747 as a base since redesigns with an already proven concept (math worked out and tests conducted ofc) can be a cheaper and quicker alternative to a completely new model. Especially since Virgin Galactic is now getting used to the 747 and is becoming familiar with the controls of the plane. Maintenance-wise there is the added benefit of being capable of utilizing some parts from the already-in-manufacture 747. The setup in the video is indeed cheap and proves the viability of the launch system but I think it could be improved dramatically. For example think of the weight saved if you cut away the lower deck of the 747 and kept the structure of the upper deck and the basic shape of the fuselage. Then you take and shift the rocket into the area now vacant. This could reduce excess drag on the wings and move the center of balance closer to the center of the structure while also potentially allowing for larger and better rockets to be launched in this manner. Yes parts and modules would need to be shifted and tests conducted on the new model et cetera. However, I think that such a redesign would be far more efficient going forward. As I am not an aerospace engineer, I am not totally educated on aircraft physics. I only know the basic stuff really--lift, drag, aileron, elevator, rudder, thrust, trim and that sort of stuff. So if you have insights it would be appreciated. As for the 6 engine, twin fuselage competitor goes, I personally have doubts that it could give a superior performance as is. It would have in essence 3 fuselages worth of drag attached to it while loaded and would have to overcome that to get the altitude needed. I really think that by having both loads (the normal flight compartments and the rocket) right on top of each other, you could give much better stability while not disrupting the aerodynamics of the aircraft. TL:DR -- I am not saying that the 747 is limiting the launch. I am saying that it could be improved on and made more efficient. Since it is already a plentiful aircraft, it would also be cheaper with plenty of spare parts that would not need to be manufactured from scratch.
Okay, so dont watch it. Most of the rest of us thought it was interesting and entertaining as all hell. Go find something more your style, like cat videos.
I guess it will be some times before ordinarly middle-class people can travel to space through Axiom, SpaceX or Virgin Galactic. That's reserved for the wealthy. But what about a trip to the edge of space? The altitude where Felix Baumgartner jumped off? I remember in Russia they used to offer trip with the Mig-29. So what are the alternatives for the middle-class? Maybe a new generation of civilian plan that uses same tech as the Mig-29 or weather balloon?
I'm surprised to learn that the launch (release?) altitude is so low! Only 35,000 feet? Almost everyone else launches from 43,000 feet or higher. The 1950's designed X-15 rocket plane was typically dropped from 45,000 feet or higher. You would think with modern designs the launch altitude could reach 50,000 feet. And speeds of the carrier aircraft of 600-680 M.P.H. Maybe next time?
Yes, we could have a monolithic, uncontested monopoly without competition. Yet another vast single corporation built out of the absorbtion of multiple smaller, unique companies (because we don't have near enough of that in the aerospace industry yet!). Sounds great. Did you miss the part where he was talking about the good effects of competition, and how good it is to finally see different, competing approaches being tried, how it drives innovation and encourages the utmost effort to reduces costs and to find the lowest possible price solution. Even better, lets just clump the resources of all of them together, put it under government control and give them a limitless fountain of money to throw at the problem and a total monopoly in the market. because that sounds like it would work great!
If interested I can furnish a bibliography of Patents and other documents to prove how there are better alternatives to vintage 1960s brute force vertical flight into orbit so please respond.
Virgin orbit is going public, i mean....Who'd buy that stock? Virgin Orbit should be part of Galactic. After all, there are only few clients out there, with dozens of satellite launcher startups already on the horizon, especially the Rocketlab, with their cheap ridesharing launcher service.
Virgin didn't do anything radical, just carried the *RocketOne* on the wings of an airliner, had they modified a over top wing bulk cargo airbus plane, to open like a split hatch, from belly bottom front nose, to near tale rear, it could've deployed a *Virgin Starship* size rocket, even SpaceX version. Being the very first stage of launch, as a winged concept. Virgin could've used all 4(four) of those rockets, to take the WHOLE airline into the Unity22 "space tourism" hieghts, 😆 seriously, a super tourism craft🤔. Also a part jet stage with ramjet features would beat the safety of the land2land SpaceX passenger vRocket method. Like a *Passenger Orbitline Service* There is many many ways beyond the *burning canister of pact large currency* old-school called a *T-minus waste of weather and money pure verticle ROCKET* You can also take MASSIVE space stations in FULL structure built forms, just by adding *vHigh* Balloons and wings, drones to propeller rise it up, then the wings and baloon to rise, eventually use the balloons to compress and use its air to slow burn the higher peak, before the rockets, be the final stage in exo orbits,
This is all very interesting and exciting. What is more exciting is the possibility of this technology being stolen, modified, and turned into a ballistic nuclear missile.
don't use heavy batteries to get you in space, and to stay there. use a light battery, enough to get you into space, then use a barrage balloon made up of solar cells, they probably only need the breath of an astronaut to inflate them.
"May only the civilian rockets fly above your heads". Awww, that's the nicest thing anyone's said to me all day.
your "civilian rockets" will launch military payload...
@@woodywood1951 It depends what the military payload does. GPS was introduced as a military system. However, the civilian sector massively benefited from it, and I wouldn't want to miss it nowadays. ;-)
I guess you've never seen a James Bond movie then, ay?
My brother in law is an astrophysicist at Penn state.. his research team is constantly on the hunt for cheaper launches.. with the payload space at a premium on the larger rockets this type of launch system is the future of small payloads .
This last Thursday night (March of 2023) I attended a presentation at Embry-Riddle Aviation University in Prescott, Arizona by one of the alumni who retired from the Air Force and went to work for Virgin Orbit as a pilot. His Power Point presentation was interesting but your video was ENTHRALLING! Keep up the great work, LOVE your videos in all aspects!
I was flying a glider on the day Cosmic Girl was ferried from MZJ in Az to Victorville in California. Had a beautiful front quarter view of her as she climbed thru 9000 MSL as she overflew El-Tiro Glider Port AZ67. Her wake turbulence gave me a slightly more than gentle nudge. A very memorable flight.
I really feel like this is the most exciting time for space travel since the 60s. There’s so much innovation going on and it’s positive that it’s no longer relying on governments.
Other than applying modern materials and computer technology, I myself can't see much actual "innovation" here.
All the modern rocket companies are heavily based on work done by NASA in the 60's.
You have done it again my friend, excellent...humor and science, a winning combination!
to leave planet earth, you have to exceed 100 kilometers, and that did not happen
@@LibertadExpresiva wrong
Once again - B747 to the rescue.
Actually the legendary B52 that carried the first rocket planes and provided the platform for placing the first successful commercial payload insertion, had significant advantages over even the B747. Built to very demanding standard of the first military bomber to carry the first hydrogen bombs, and has design features that remain classified to this very day. However much was reviled by a recent BBC report in part “It’s incredible,” says Stemm, “that the aircraft had enough surplus lift and wing area that they could make a substantial cut in it without having an effect on the aircraft sizeable chunk missing from the wing and the special adapter to hold the spaceplane, this special B-52 (also known as the NB-52A) also boasts unusual markings along the main fuselage. Where some aircraft might have representations of the planes they shot down or the bombs they dropped, this has pictures of X-15s - each signifying one of the 80 missions flown by this particular B-52.”
While some may not understand certain maneuvers involved by the mother ship. One of the few that is rarely mentioned is the gravity hole created (that is a kind of dip then upward pull ) executed prior to launch that provide additional power to the thrust vector. Tho this small fact is seldom mentioned, it was a factor in our early ballistic trajectory equations. The particular B52 carried a number of features that reinforced points on the wing to allow a maximum load, an aerodynamically enhancement that was unique to its mission.
Magnificent work, as always :)
4.11mins in to video. Man in shades, right back to you, victory of peace😉
Well done Virgin coverage is much appreciated
Great video as always. When talking about the economics about everything in your video. For me a phrase came to mind, "keep it simple stupid". What we learn with the space shuttle programs, having things too complex creates more issues. Eventually one day we'll have the space plane that would be able to launch from a conventional Airport and go all away to the Moon or Mars. But until then having virgins type space launch system, seems to be a more economical way of doing it for smaller payloads. But putting up a very large payloads, until technology increase. We have to rely on conventional rockets like Space X is doing. I am hopeful for space travel, as long as we have people all over the world concentrate their energies on space, and not waste their energy on petty squabbles trying to control each other. I know that's a pipe dream, but maybe one day that will happen, I'm looking forward to it. Cheers to you Dion
*Thank You Thank You Thank You* You have finally started to quote thrust in pounds as well as kilonewtons.
747 never ceases to impress me.
Indirectly, a great tribute to Joe SUTTER, RIP..
Aerospace giants, in fact, are too giant
Small aggressive teams can do almost anything. Skunk works, Tesla were two examples
@@777jones Add Rocket Lab to that list. Their rate of innovation is incredible. From Electron to Photon to Proton all in a matter of years, not decades. Aerospace giants don't innovate as quickly because there's no financial incentive to do so when governments are willing to shower them with cost-plus no-bid contracts.
Boeing Company Will be Very Proud of Virgin Group for launching Rockets to Outer Space as shown above.
Great as always! Thanks
Puerto Rico is a great place to launch those rockets!
ya lo trataron y protestaron los idiotas. no quisieron enpleos diretos y indirestos que salio por las noticias!!!
Good ol 747, such a great platform! 11 more to be made unless some unforseen orders spring up !
very well done...space exploration will be huge.
Nice video of virgin 1 with clear explaining of its progression historical reaching space and penetration of space depth...thanks for sending good luck for virgin orbit
I cannot say enough that I love your videos so much. Especially your accent is interesting and makes it different. Anyways w
Very well done and please please please continue your videos. God bless. Many thanks
Aaaaand we still wait the Virgin Galactic to start operation
their City to City Service will explode !
Orbital Sciences (and now Northrup Grumman) has been doing this with their Lockheed L-1011 launch platform for nearly 20 years. The L-1011 launches the rocket from 39,000 feet.
The L-1011 has provisions for a spare engine to be carried under the wing as well.
Virgin is late to the party. 747 is as well.
Yup, he mentioned that in the video, but thanks for saying it again. He also explained how this is different, and why this is likely to be _successful_. and not a failure like last time. No one suggested this was some novel new idea that had never been tried. Dont worry, no one was trying to belittle your precious L-1011, so you can stop with the 'MY plane did it first and so its better, so nah-nah to you!' routine.
Simply outstanding!👍👍👍👍
Excellent recap
Great Job as Always! Thank U!!! ; }>
Light payloads and daring tourists
great video, well done
Space are relate with human being (you and me) & this is exciting moment.
nicely put together
I wish you'll do a video on the old Douglas aircraft, dc2, dc3, to dc 7.
I agree, pls do it SkyShips
Excellent, as always.
This was a remarkably thoughtful and well-researched review. 👍
Thank you for uploading. I had the chance to view a rocket launch in 2018. Unbelievable experience. I shared a pretty cool video of the trip to my page.
Yes.
Here in Oscoda, MI we have got the winning bid to do the horizontal launches for Space-X. Few years ago I was in Lancaster, CA and saw the first Virgin Galactic plane. Such a awesome field to work in. Very good, informative vid.
Excellent....All togather l guess...lol Thanks my friend
I am so glad it worked.
The 747 with extra engine blew my f-ing mind.
There should be a warning before you play that image saying:
"Prepare to trip out if you're high" which I was btw.
Considering how many ex-SpaceX people are working on this project, it is not surprising that the engine and the rocket have so many similarities to Falcon-1.
It is interesting that LauncherOne and Falcon-1 are the same size and weight, and use the same fuel, but Falcon-1 can launch heavier payloads from the ground than LauncherOne from the air. It is counter-intuitive that launching from the airplane did not increase, but in fact *reduced* the payload. I assume that to allow the fueled rocket to be carried under the wing of the airplane, the structure of the rocket had to be made much stronger and therefore heavier, comparing to the rocket launched vertically from the ground. This weight penalty seems to be greater than the gain from the altitude and velocity of the air-launch.
Since you are doing rockets and rocket families more and more often, may I request a video of the Titan family of launch vehicles? Quicke the interesting story.
I'll try to make more space videos. Titan family, maybe, will be created too
If he does Titan he has to do the SS-18/R-36. A real pioneer in rocket technology.
Can we all laugh a little at the fact that even Virgin Orbit gets to orbit, unlike Blue Origin? lol
topkek
lol
Virgin orbit gets to orbit.
Blue origin stays in its origin.
Its appropiate.
Yup. I guess that's why Bozos stepped down from Amazon CEO so he could play catch-up with the real men of space technology.
Nice video !
Good story. Make more about the Virgin Galactic
1:03 young skyships looking innocent
Whats the advantage from just 10-12km less?
A large part of the size and weight of a rocket is used lifting it the first 10-20km, through the thick air. A rocket launched from 35,000ft can be a quarter of the size and cost for the same payload.
The Boeing 747 is the greatest, most versatile aircraft ever made.
yessssssir
Totally cool we want tickets
6:40 The biggest Air to Air guided missile
Except its not an air-to-air missile, so....what? Yes, it looks like a big missile, but planes carry all sorts of missiles, AAMs, AGMs, ASMs, ARMs, ASATs, etc.
@@justforever96 I'm just joking
@@Maverick966 i know. But it didnt make any sense anyway.
i loved this
So Virgin 747's are now fitted with cruise missiles
virgin airlines has created an intercontinental missile that holds passengers
Where did you get your music from?? I like it!!
how much does it cost per launch?
Awesome
Launch a spaceship from a mother aircraft? Gerry Anderson was doing that in the 70's.
Now I want to see them mate back with the mother ship to take them home.
What if they put launcher 2 on the other wing ?
The left wing on the B747-400 was re-enforced by design and manufacture to create a test bed for an experimental engine. They showed a clip of a 5th engine mounted under the left wing. It was easy to convert this engine mount to a rocket mount on the left wing.
they have to lengthen the landing train for big roket
I personally do see its a good idea to use aircraft to take spacecraft to launch it to space to support my argument
What is cost of fuel required to take mothership and launch vehicle to that height as against the cost of fuel taking directly launch vehicle to that height
0:54 whatttt !!!!! SOME GUY FROM SOUTH AFRICA !!! lmao !!!!
Can it carry 2 rocket one on each wing?
You seem to like saying the word "subsidiary" mate, quite a few times in this very interesting video. Great work mate!!
Just one last point....... what is wrong with Sir Richard Branson? He's an extremely driven individual who injects loads of enthusiasm into everything he does and it's infectious..... according to a friend who works for Virgin Atlantic. If anyone can make this work, it's Branson..... he rarely fails. 🇬🇧🇬🇧✌✌
do the eletron rocket and the bfr soon
My first thought; one rocket per wing. I don't know if there's a hard point (2nd spare engine) on the right wing (left if it's a mirrored image)? ;-)
No, they never planned on carrying more than one extra engine, and why would you want to launch two rockets on the same mission? how common do you think space launches are, anyway? Their target is a couple launches per month, and the rocket is aimed by the plane, and there is little chance of two customers wanting to launch satellites into almost the same orbit at the same time.
I was fairly sure the 747 didn't have a second hardpoint, I briefly worked on the 400 (not the wing), but mainly on the 757 and it had a single hard point for a while (I believe it was removed soon after production started).
Chapter 11 brought me here
Dayum!!! Virgin doing better than blue origin😭🤣😭🤣
@A. I. oml 😂😂😂
Apparently when the first ad appeared within Virgin wanting volunteers for the spaceships all the pilots thought it was a joke!
Why would they? The project was announced and covered all over the media years before they ever got an actual flying piece of hardware. Anyone who was surprised that Virgin wanted space ship pilots must have been livin under a rock to have missed all the hype and promotion going on.
@@justforever96 yeah, you're right. Of course.
The rocket drop concept and rocket itself the insert satellites is old proven military technology. When they make a 747 that can fly to the moon and back I will be impressed.
I love the idea- how will they not make it work?
Call the rocket Beagle 3 😁 🚀
How can a moving platform be cheaper than a fixed one? 1/26th speed advantage can’t compensate for the complexity of a flying platform.
Imagine a 747 with 4 middle pylons under it wings and a cassette full of cruise missiles in its belly. It could wipe out a small country.
just imagine how much more they could add if they got rid of everything unnecessary on the 747 and made a new craft based off it's wing design and powerful engines
Huh? The 747 is not the limiting factor here, dude. That rocket doesnt even make a 747 break a sweat as it is. If they wanted a bigger, heavier rocket, they could have one without changing the launch plane at all. They chose that size on purpose because it is cheaper and less challenging. When they do develop a larger unit, they could develop an entire purpose built launcher/carrier for the same price as trying to totally rebuild a 747 with an entirely new fuselage. Its not like a 747 has some magic powers that cant be matched by any other machine; they chose the 747 because it was cheap and readily available. What you describe is neither of those things. And trust me, you are not the first one to think 'hey, what if we, like, carried a really BIG rocket up and launched it from altitude?' What do you think the point of the 6-engine, twin fuselage competitor shown in the video is?
@@justforever96 I did not say it was a limiting factor at all. I was thinking in terms of a total redesign that uses the proven 747 as a base since redesigns with an already proven concept (math worked out and tests conducted ofc) can be a cheaper and quicker alternative to a completely new model. Especially since Virgin Galactic is now getting used to the 747 and is becoming familiar with the controls of the plane. Maintenance-wise there is the added benefit of being capable of utilizing some parts from the already-in-manufacture 747. The setup in the video is indeed cheap and proves the viability of the launch system but I think it could be improved dramatically. For example think of the weight saved if you cut away the lower deck of the 747 and kept the structure of the upper deck and the basic shape of the fuselage. Then you take and shift the rocket into the area now vacant. This could reduce excess drag on the wings and move the center of balance closer to the center of the structure while also potentially allowing for larger and better rockets to be launched in this manner. Yes parts and modules would need to be shifted and tests conducted on the new model et cetera. However, I think that such a redesign would be far more efficient going forward.
As I am not an aerospace engineer, I am not totally educated on aircraft physics. I only know the basic stuff really--lift, drag, aileron, elevator, rudder, thrust, trim and that sort of stuff. So if you have insights it would be appreciated. As for the 6 engine, twin fuselage competitor goes, I personally have doubts that it could give a superior performance as is. It would have in essence 3 fuselages worth of drag attached to it while loaded and would have to overcome that to get the altitude needed. I really think that by having both loads (the normal flight compartments and the rocket) right on top of each other, you could give much better stability while not disrupting the aerodynamics of the aircraft.
TL:DR -- I am not saying that the 747 is limiting the launch. I am saying that it could be improved on and made more efficient. Since it is already a plentiful aircraft, it would also be cheaper with plenty of spare parts that would not need to be manufactured from scratch.
Omg this was mind numbing
Okay, so dont watch it. Most of the rest of us thought it was interesting and entertaining as all hell. Go find something more your style, like cat videos.
Why don’t they use the remaining space in the boieng 747-400 aka cosmic girl for cargo lol.
I guess it will be some times before ordinarly middle-class people can travel to space through Axiom, SpaceX or Virgin Galactic. That's reserved for the wealthy. But what about a trip to the edge of space? The altitude where Felix Baumgartner jumped off? I remember in Russia they used to offer trip with the Mig-29. So what are the alternatives for the middle-class? Maybe a new generation of civilian plan that uses same tech as the Mig-29 or weather balloon?
I'm surprised to learn that the launch (release?) altitude is so low! Only 35,000 feet?
Almost everyone else launches from 43,000 feet or higher. The 1950's designed X-15 rocket plane was typically dropped from 45,000 feet or higher.
You would think with modern designs the launch altitude could reach 50,000 feet. And speeds of the carrier aircraft of 600-680 M.P.H.
Maybe next time?
Probably limited by using a 747 , I believe white knight launches from 45000ft as it’s specially designed for the job
17 years on and they still haven't sent paying customers into space.
@Schlomo Baconberg yes, why?
You are confusing Virgin Orbit with Virgin Galactic.
spacenews.com/virgin-orbit-reaches-orbit-on-second-launcherone-mission/
They had customers on this flight.
soon astronauts will be positively sent
Poles: _In... Into.... Into space?_
Virgin Galactic to send people to the edge of space, if the company can survive.
Sky.. now I am dissapointed.. You didnt find an abandoned one and document it ;)
isn't virgin Corp Australian?
I think so
Wow
What's sad is the duplication of efforts. If only the three big egos could work together, who knows what could be achieved.
Yes, we could have a monolithic, uncontested monopoly without competition. Yet another vast single corporation built out of the absorbtion of multiple smaller, unique companies (because we don't have near enough of that in the aerospace industry yet!). Sounds great.
Did you miss the part where he was talking about the good effects of competition, and how good it is to finally see different, competing approaches being tried, how it drives innovation and encourages the utmost effort to reduces costs and to find the lowest possible price solution.
Even better, lets just clump the resources of all of them together, put it under government control and give them a limitless fountain of money to throw at the problem and a total monopoly in the market. because that sounds like it would work great!
Thumbnail was a 747 equipped with Air-to air guided missile
No
Давай, лети!!!)))
A380 I CAN FLY THE MOST PASSENGERS B747 HOLD MY BEER
I thought 60 miles up was the beginning of space?
If interested I can furnish a bibliography of Patents and other documents to prove how there are better alternatives to vintage 1960s brute force vertical flight into orbit so please respond.
👉¿cuando montan asiento$$$$$$$$?
Noice
I guess I’ll cost too much to modify the 747 to actually store the rocket internally instead of having a secondary Freighter
Virgin orbit is going public, i mean....Who'd buy that stock? Virgin Orbit should be part of Galactic. After all, there are only few clients out there, with dozens of satellite launcher startups already on the horizon, especially the Rocketlab, with their cheap ridesharing launcher service.
Virgin didn't do anything radical, just carried the *RocketOne* on the wings of an airliner, had they modified a over top wing bulk cargo airbus plane, to open like a split hatch, from belly bottom front nose, to near tale rear, it could've deployed a *Virgin Starship* size rocket, even SpaceX version. Being the very first stage of launch, as a winged concept.
Virgin could've used all 4(four) of those rockets, to take the WHOLE airline into the Unity22 "space tourism" hieghts, 😆 seriously, a super tourism craft🤔. Also a part jet stage with ramjet features would beat the safety of the land2land SpaceX passenger vRocket method. Like a *Passenger Orbitline Service*
There is many many ways beyond the *burning canister of pact large currency* old-school called a *T-minus waste of weather and money pure verticle ROCKET*
You can also take MASSIVE space stations in FULL structure built forms, just by adding *vHigh* Balloons and wings, drones to propeller rise it up, then the wings and baloon to rise, eventually use the balloons to compress and use its air to slow burn the higher peak, before the rockets, be the final stage in exo orbits,
hahah you are funny some guy from south Africa
This is all very interesting and exciting. What is more exciting is the possibility of this technology being stolen, modified, and turned into a ballistic nuclear missile.
imagine these rockets are programmed to land like spacex falcon>?
don't use heavy batteries to get you in space, and to stay there. use a light battery, enough to get you into space, then use a barrage balloon made up of solar cells, they probably only need the breath of an astronaut to inflate them.