Another big day for American aerospace.

https://www.cnbc.com/2021/01/18/richard ... m-747.html

More:

https://arstechnica.com/science/2021/01 ... -its-name/

It's a thrilling technological achievement. I don't think I ever saw a liquid rocket fly at this angle of attack.

But I'm going to predict that in 7 years VO will either
- go bankrupt and cease operations,
or
- switch to launch from land
There, I said it.

Pegasus underwent the switch when it transformed into Taurus.

In his interview about Pegasus, Elon Musk outlined 3 main reasons why "if you were the smartest person on earth you could not make the Pegasus cheap" (direct quote). These were:
1. Technical complexity of Pegasus, which was not only a 4-stage rocket, but also included a complete hypersonic airplane
2. The need to maintain the fixed asset (the L-1011 "Stargazer")
3. Launching in a close proximity to the crew and requirement to develop a man-rated system just to launch microsats

VO resolves the technical problems, mostly. The do not have the hypersonic airplane and they only have 2 stages.

VO backed off resolving the fixed asset problem. The 747 "Cosmic Girl" is dedicated to the project, same as "Stargazer" was. They may be able to mitigate the problem with launch rate.

VO did nothing to improve the safety, so the cost of safety protocols drags on them.

The announced costs of VirginOrbit are higher than that of Rocket Lab (12 million versus 7 million for the same 300 kg to SSO), although of course that is a subject for change. But fundamentally they are at a disadvantage right out of the gate, even before the consider SpaceX Transporter missions.

Over the years, I have learned not to try to second guess billionaires like Musk and Branson. All I know is that a lot of the satellites in orbit right now are dated and need to be replaced (not to mention they will eventually have to come down or be blown up to prevent overcrowding) as well as the necessity to put up new ones on both a low cost and fast turnaround basis such as launching from a 747.

The necessity is true enough, but the problem is that launching from a 747 is the dumbest, least economic way of going about it. Well, almost. Russians actually tried launching from a nuclear submarine, which is dumber and even less economical. So, make it the 2nd dumbest.

When Antonio Elias developed Pegasus things were much different. Spaceports were difficult to access. But now Space Florida, MARS (Wallops), Kodiak's authorities are falling over themselves to help new launchers. Heck, even the famously insular Vanderberg, which at one point kicked out Elon Musk, is opening up with Firefly settling there. We can excuse him and Dave Thompson for doing it in the 1990s.

But today, VO have competitors that Orbital did not have. They cannot afford screwing around with the 747.

did Orbital get a new plane?.....they use to use a L1011 to launch Pegasus.

For context, here are the payloads to low Earth orbit:

LauncherOne: 1,100 lbs.

Falcon 9: 34,400 lbs

Falcon Heavy: 132,000 lbs

Starship + Super Heavy: 220,000 lbs

SLS block 1: 209,000 lbs

SLS block 2: 290,000 lbs

Being limited to what a 747 can carry (asymmetrically no less) makes the LauncherOne pretty limited. There are ground launched options (such as Electron) which are projected to cost less per pound than LauncherOne.

The safety issues of having an RP-1/LOX rocket attached to a 747 with people on board is kind of scary.

Mike C.

Happy to see vertical takeoff and vertical landing working. I was part of the Delta Clipper project back in the 90's.....was a contractor part of SDIO in the TNE group.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JzXcTFfV3Ls

This might out dumb them all:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sea_Dragon_(rocket)

Sink your rocket into the ocean to launch it. What could go wrong with that?

Mike C.

Dear Lord NO!

You can't blow up satellites in orbit without producing clouds of debris that will likely destroy multiple satellites in nearby orbits, with a cascade effect that could go on to a catastrophic end. Space debris has to be avoided at almost all costs, deliberately creating it is inconceivable.

Blowing up satellites has definitely been conceived before, and even done before.

Mike C.

Blowing up satellites has definitely been conceived before, and even done before.

Mike C.

Dear Lord NO!

You can't blow up satellites in orbit without producing clouds of debris that will likely destroy multiple satellites in nearby orbits, with a cascade effect that could go on to a catastrophic end. Space debris has to be avoided at almost all costs, deliberately creating it is inconceivable.

you probably could join the Space Force and do it for free.....

Unless you’re China. They can conceive of it.