Virgin Orbit Is Assembling a Fleet of Boeing 747 Jets To Launch More Rockets Into Space (cnbc.com) 30
Virgin Orbit is assembling a fleet of modified 747 jets, the company announced Tuesday, ordering two new modified cargo airframes to help launch more rockets into space. CNBC reports: The company is acquiring the two additional airframes through L3Harris, which will modify the jets to carry and launch Virgin Orbit's rockets. Virgin expects to take delivery of the first of the planes next year. Virgin Orbit CEO Dan Hart said the delivery timing of the second plane will be "driven more by market demand" for launches. The deal "unleashes us in a few ways," he said. "It eliminates one of the key chokepoints that we have in the system," Hart told CNBC. It also will help the company keep launches going in case one of their aircraft is undergoing maintenance, which will open up "all sorts of possibilities for supporting different customers in different places," he added.
Virgin Orbit has a single aircraft, a customized Boeing 747-400 called "Cosmic Girl," which has flown four missions of Virgin Orbit's LauncherOne rocket to date. Through a method known as air launch, the company's aircraft carries its rockets to about 45,000 feet of altitude and drops them just before they fire their engines and accelerate into space -- a method the company touts as more flexible than ground-based systems. [...] Virgin Orbit's new 747s will also feature an improved layout, with L3Harris modifying the aircraft to carry up to two LauncherOne rockets, as well as all of the company's ground support equipment, to a launch site.
Virgin Orbit has a single aircraft, a customized Boeing 747-400 called "Cosmic Girl," which has flown four missions of Virgin Orbit's LauncherOne rocket to date. Through a method known as air launch, the company's aircraft carries its rockets to about 45,000 feet of altitude and drops them just before they fire their engines and accelerate into space -- a method the company touts as more flexible than ground-based systems. [...] Virgin Orbit's new 747s will also feature an improved layout, with L3Harris modifying the aircraft to carry up to two LauncherOne rockets, as well as all of the company's ground support equipment, to a launch site.
Bezos' money (Score:2, Offtopic)
But now what is going to happen is that every game in town will have Bezos' money to invest in their companies, Musk will pick up every launch contract in the next few years on his own term
Re:Bezos' money (Score:5, Interesting)
On the one hand it's good that access to space is getting cheaper, but on the other hand we are already seeing problems with overcrowding.
Bezos going to that climate conference and talking about his trip to space was one of the most cringe inducing things I've seen in a long while.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
On the one hand it's good that access to space is getting cheaper, but on the other hand we are already seeing problems with overcrowding.
Bezos going to that climate conference and talking about his trip to space was one of the most cringe inducing things I've seen in a long while.
Do you find the Musk presentations soothing? My Grifty senses start clanging quickly when he starts talking, as well as he's a horrible speaker.
What I find a little disturbing is how Musk minions believe that they and only they (vicariously through the guy they idolize) have the right to spaceflight, and that all other rockets are interlopers, and failures, and that all else is stupid, only Musk should rule.
It's how I can hear the Musk faithful ridicule an Astra Rocket failure and ignore a Starship rap
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Where did you see "the Musk faithful" ridicule Astra's failures? Surely not on r/SpaceX.
Youtube and Facebook. And no, I didn't preserve the links.
It really read exactly like the ridicule that Virgin is getting. And NASA itself.
The idea of NASA releasing the mature nuts and bolts stuff to the marketplace is to generate competition. But as in all things, fanatics want a monoculture.
And people need to ask themselves. "Does Musk have fanatics?" If your answer is "No they don't", that means you're a fanatic.
Re:Bezos' money (Score:5, Insightful)
Fanboys are going to fan, there's no news in that. No difference between e.g. Apple fanboys and Musk fanboys. But there is a difference in Bezos fanboys - the difference being that he has no fanboys. Nobody has anything good to say about Bezos.
Compare that to Musk, who is a mixed bag. Maybe you like him because he turned around the stagnant industries of electric vehicles and space launching. Maybe you hate him because you think he is a libtard because he's from SV; maybe you hate him because you think he is a deplorable because he has opinions about free speech. Maybe you fan him because you think he shits golden turds, maybe you simp him because he has memes. Maybe you hate him because he's a bit of an asspie and cannot put on a show like Steve Jobs did. Maybe you find the never-arriving FSD infinitely amusing.
But whatever floats your boat, stating the fact that Bezos is just cringe all the way down does not hint at one's opinion of Musk. Stating the fact that Musk is the big game in space launch right now does also not hint at one's opinion of Musk. There is no logic operation to start with fact statements and end up with value statements. What happens is the interpreter brings his own values to the table, and in this case, makes them public by reading them into the fact statements.
Re: (Score:1)
No point really, just musing about how Bezos is such a complete asshat that he expects us all to marvel at him being the second rich arsehole to make a sub-orbital flight, and listen in wonder as he tells us how fragile the planet he is actively wrecking is.
Musk is little better IMHO. He didn't found Tesla, and the influence of Tesla cars outside the US is much less than many seem to realize. At the moment he's complaining that the Chinese workers at his Shanghai factory were locked in due to COVID and work
Re: (Score:3)
No point really, just musing about how Bezos is such a complete asshat that he expects us all to marvel at him being the second rich arsehole to make a sub-orbital flight, and listen in wonder as he tells us how fragile the planet he is actively wrecking is.
Musk is little better IMHO. He didn't found Tesla, and the influence of Tesla cars outside the US is much less than many seem to realize. At the moment he's complaining that the Chinese workers at his Shanghai factory were locked in due to COVID and working all night to make money for him, and why can't Americans be like that?
Fuck the both of them.
Whaddaygonnado?
We're all asshats in someone's mind.
I mean despite my sweet engaging personality and kindness, some here think I'm an asshat! Or worse. Interferes with my sleep sometimes. 8^)
Re: (Score:2)
Well yeah, but what's your point?
Fanboys are going to fan, there's no news in that. No difference between e.g. Apple fanboys and Musk fanboys. But there is a difference in Bezos fanboys - the difference being that he has no fanboys. Nobody has anything good to say about Bezos.
Like what is your point? Can't do things unless you have a group of simpering fawning fanatics?
Compare that to Musk, who is a mixed bag. Maybe you like him because he turned around the stagnant industries of electric vehicles and space launching. Maybe you hate him because you think he is a libtard because he's from SV; maybe you hate him because you think he is a deplorable because he has opinions about free speech.
Ah - you see, it isn't Musk I have a problem with, although I note that I don't enjoy listening to him talk, and he's a salseman, and I consider most Salesmen as grifty.
Non, mon ami. What I find repulsive is those who worship him as if he is a god.
As I said when I wrote:
"What I find a little disturbing is how Musk minions believe that they and only they (vicariously through the guy they idolize) have the rig
Three! (Score:1)
You don't say (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Nothing elicits the excitement of going to space like an old 747. Are they also going to be using hand-cracked calculators for the effort?
Modern Rockets haven't changed much at all since the V-2 days. Which is like 80 years ago. All the basics are in the V-2, and this is very mature technology. The 747 is about 3 decades younger if we're keeping track of that sort of thing. What we have done since, was tweaking the parts, and working on that very mature technology. Pump more fuel and oxidant, execute better control. Tinkering with them to get a little more thrust or efficiency. Fuel and oxidant mixtures have been pretty set for both liquid
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
You mean you'll be impressed when they start refueling their spacecraft in space? Or are you asking for a human to change the laws of physics? I mean, the latter would be a ridiculous thing to ask for so I assume it's the former.
It's a statement of the ridiculous, because it's physics. I convinced a lot of his worshippers do not believe he is constrained by physics. It is not debatable that we've seen that many people are willing to believe in alternative physics in regards to space exploration and rockets. Witness the EM drive. Or would that be EM Drivel?
My point is that despite many people's belief, Musk is just another human, and is happy to act on his impulses.
This is not a bad thing in itself. But it does lead to failur
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
>>>>Back to the rockets. Those Musk rockets are really nothing new other than size. (although that big long transfer tube collapsing on Starship seems to be trying to bend physics a bit - Hah! see what I did there?) A scary weak point. Certainly a mix of oxidant and fuel inside the lower tank will be really exciting, though perhaps not what was wanted. I would suggest a 4th of July evening launch, might be very impressive.
Except for the whole reusable AND cost-effective part which drives down costs to the customer. This is new. Saying otherwise weakens your argument. If Starship is successful, it will be even more reusable and more cost-effective and carry larger payloads to space than imaginable before.
The strange thing about this cost effectiveness is interesting - What does it cost? That has nothing to do with what your leader charges for launch. If I had this incredibly inexpensive always reusable launch system, I wou
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Possibly not.
But it severely limits the size (and therefore utility) of the rocket.
And isn't burning jet fuel bad for the AGW, and therefore to be suppressed at any cost?
Re: (Score:2)
Using an airplane as defacto "first stage" isn't the worst idea.
That is very true. It's not as exciting as a big rocket, but it can get you high enough that you aren't using the wild consumption rates lifting something off from sea level. The monster Saturn 5 was drinking 12,890 kg of fuel and oxidizer per second at launch. Even at that rate, the heavy bastard stack took 12 seconds to clear the launch tower. Space shuttle with it's solid booster took half that time. Saturn 5 tower clearing was a real pucker string moment, but it was a good monster so it wasn't the issu
Re: (Score:2)
Didn't Richard Branson [youtu.be] cause the crash of the last jet used to launch stuff into space, nearly killing everyone on board and hundreds of people on the ground?
If it hadn't been for Superman...
Re: (Score:3)
Nothing elicits the excitement of going to space like an old 747. Are they also going to be using hand-cracked calculators for the effort?
While I understand the sentiment, the Boeing 747 has a capability that makes it uniquely qualified for this type of rocket launching. Namely, the 747 can carry a 5th engine in a Ferry configuration (an example is here: https://www.flightradar24.com/... [flightradar24.com] . NOTE: The engine ferried in the article weighed 6 tons (12,000 lbs)). If you compare the ferry picture to the actual Virgin 747 rocket launcher picture, you will note that they mount the rocket in the same spot at the ferry engine ( https://en.wikipedia.org [wikipedia.org]
This is hardly the next SpaceX. (Score:2)
What they're doing is carrying up LauncherOne, a rocket only big enough to put small satellites into orbit.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
No one is going anywhere on this thing.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Limited use (Score:3)
IMHO, this approach and Rocket Lab using a helicopter to catch a their rocket illustrates a myopic view of space. Neither of these approaches can be used anywhere except on Earth which means that their goal isn't to go anywhere else. They won't be going to the moon or Mars or anywhere else. Same thing with Sierra Nevada. As such, their future is limited by disposable income and novelty, both of which will fade over time.
Re: (Score:2)
Other than SpaceX, none of these commercial space projects are for doing space-y things.
Is three a fleet? (Score:2)
an odd ratio (Score:2)
that's an odd ratio of jumbo jets to successful orbital placements . . .