
The 1950's Jet Launching Tiny Satellites - jcbeard
http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20160826-the-1950s-jet-launching-tiny-satellites
======
mLuby
The company:
[http://cubecab.com/technologies.html](http://cubecab.com/technologies.html)
Also check out [http://generationorbit.com](http://generationorbit.com) and of
course pegasus
[https://www.wikiwand.com/en/Pegasus_(rocket)#/Launch_profile](https://www.wikiwand.com/en/Pegasus_\(rocket\)#/Launch_profile)
Are there others pursuing air-launch?

~~~
mzs
One more link here:
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12415755](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12415755)

------
dharma1
Very cool. Would be nice to know how much they charge for one cubesat, and how
high orbit they can shoot one to (and how long the cubesat stays there)

~~~
Steltek
My recollection is that normal cubesats generally don't have any propellant
(as they're usually hitchhiking on larger payloads) so that combined with
their tiny size, the orbit is not going to be sustainable for long.

------
tzs
> Less than a decade after test pilot Chuck Yeager first broke the speed of
> sound, it became the first jet to fly more than twice the speed of sound.

Flying faster than the speed of sound has physical significance, because there
are major changes in the way the air and the plane interact as you pass the
speed of sound.

If there anything physically significant about twice the speed of sound, or is
that just special psychologically?

------
crazytony
Aside from the acres of hyperbole in this article: getting to the bottom of
this article, this approach seems strange to me. Why bother with the F104?
Feels like you'd want to maximize speed-at-cieling and weight-to-ceiling for
an air based rocket launch. Something like a MiG-25 could take a heavier
rocket much faster at the same altitude (Mach 3.2 vs 2.0 for the F104).

~~~
hartror
I would be willing to bet an economic externality such as the cost and
availability of Starfighters and crews. Especially for what appears to be a US
based company.

~~~
crazytony
that's probably true. I see 4 in the FAA registry. I don't see any MiG 25s but
I see 5 MiG 29s in the FAA's US registry.

Even the MiG 29 would get you marginally better Mach numbers (2.2 vs 2.0) and
better payload. Plus they were produced in similar numbers as the F104.

~~~
gjdjcjdnxnvjd
A MiG 29 is still on the trailing edge of what's considered state of the art
for fighter aircraft. It's essentially Russia's version of the F-16/ F-18. I
would imagine that mid-century F-104's would be much more affordable.

------
Roboprog
These planes seem like they would be good candidates for a fly-by-wire
conversion, or at least a redesigned Starfighter II.

Probably not practical, since they don't bank-n-yank well, but they would sure
look cool :-)

