# Ageing fighter jets to launch satellites into space.



## CAPSLOCKSTUCK (Aug 30, 2016)

Mountain View-based firm CubeCab wants to fire microsatellites into orbit from  high altitude fighter jets.

By packing tiny CubeSats into a rocket-like canister and launching them at more than 100,000 feet, the space firm claims it will slash the costs of sending lightweight space tech into low Earth orbit.








CubeCab plans to shake things up by attaching its satellite payload to a fleet of ageing fighter jets, which first saw military service in the 1950s.

The F-104 jets are operated by Starfighters Aerospace, which launches its fleet from Cape Canaveral in Florida, the home of Nasa’s space missions.

Starfighters’ fleet is made up of retired F-104 jets from the Italian Air Force, which were taken out of service in 2004.

In order to launch micro satellites, a small rocket containing them is attached to the pylons under the wings – which would have been used to attach bombs mission during military runs.

Once launched from Cape Canaveral, the jets will reach altitudes of more than 100,000 feet, before the rocket launches and the canister of microsatellites is released into orbit.

According to CubeCab, it will be able to launch microsatellites weighing no more than 5 kg (11 lbs) into low Earth orbit for $250,000 (£190,000), opening up commercial satellite delivery to more research institutions and businesses.

BBC Future

CubeCab and Starfighters are not the only ones looking at the approach.

Last year the US military said it would cut the cost of satellite launches to less than $1,000,000 (£760,000) by using fighter jets to launch them into orbit.

After take-off, F-15 jets would ascend near vertically until they reach high altitude. A rocket would then launch to deliver the payload into low earth orbit.

A concept video outlined the launch procedure, in which Darpa claims the Airborne Launch Assist Space Access (Alasa) programme will slash the cost of taking space technology into orbit.


----------



## qubit (Aug 30, 2016)

A cheap and clever way to launch these satellites. Nice.


----------



## Ferrum Master (Aug 30, 2016)

Holy crap... who actually did use brain, and how such a rational idea could walk through these greedy political highways.


----------



## dont whant to set it"' (Aug 30, 2016)

I guess the F104 can reach that altitude with apropriate trajectory as an anapogee,100.000ft[divided by ~3.(3)=30.000m] tough mark with payload, but then again I have not flown such a "bird",should be fun as it has afterbuners and what not.


----------



## Ferrum Master (Aug 30, 2016)

dont whant to set it"' said:


> I guess the F104 can reach that altitude with apropriate trajectory as an anapogee,100.000ft[divided by ~3.(3)=30.000m] tough mark with payload, but then again I have not flown such a "bird",should be fun as it has afterbuners and what not.



The Blackbird need to return back...


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Aug 31, 2016)

All this makes me think about is making it cheap to pollute space.  Fewer, larger satellites are preferable because they're easier to track and easier (and more likely) to deorbit.


----------



## dont whant to set it"' (Sep 1, 2016)

Did some diging,it boils too 3 verions:
1st: F104C
2nd: FN104A(FN104) 3 built
3rd: an other variant with a higher performance engine.(wild guess)

@Ferrum Master
@FordGT90Concept
Yes and no and no and yes: one mision would cost about in the ballpark figure as to geting the blackbird prepped for flight ,or less of the latter.
Latter edited: @dorsetknob its fn104a not f104a(my bad)


----------



## CAPSLOCKSTUCK (Sep 1, 2016)

dont whant to set it"' said:


> Did some diging,it boils too 3 verions:
> 1st: F104C
> 2nd: F104A(FN104) 3 built
> 3rd: an other variant with a higher performance engine.(wild guess)
> ...





and then you would have to adapt Blackbird to carry a payload and the ability to deploy it


----------



## dorsetknob (Sep 1, 2016)

I Also


dont whant to set it"' said:


> Did some diging



And i came up with a Service Ceiling of 50,000 ft (15,000 m)

Now While Specially prepared Examples Achieved world Altitude Records for their Time
a Service Ceiling of 50,000ft is a long way from 100,000 ft

In 1967 the 319th F-104As and Bs were re-engined with the J79-GE-19 engines with 17,900 lbf (79.6 kN) of thrust in afterburner; service ceiling with this engine was in excess of 73,000 ft

Still way short of 100,000ft


----------



## repman244 (Sep 1, 2016)

dorsetknob said:


> I Also
> 
> 
> And i came up with a Service Ceiling of 50,000 ft (15,000 m)
> ...



Mig 25/35 it is then!


----------



## CAPSLOCKSTUCK (Sep 1, 2016)

SR-71 can photograph a license plate from 80,000 feet.........still way short of 100,000 ft


----------



## Ferrum Master (Sep 1, 2016)

CAPSLOCKSTUCK said:


> and then you would have to adapt Blackbird to carry a payload and the ability to deploy it



Everything was tried already... well in the 60ties and A12... it ain't impossible for sure, at least blackbird is designed to withstand such temperatures and loads natively.


----------



## broken pixel (Sep 1, 2016)

Love F-104 Starfighters.


----------



## tabascosauz (Sep 1, 2016)

Ferrum Master said:


> Holy crap... who actually did use brain, and how such a rational idea could walk through these greedy political highways.



The F-104s require a bit of work to make them ready for the role. The F-15s however, really don't. When the ASM-135 was in service, it used the F-15 exclusively as its launch platform. The fighter would climb at high speeds at a near-vertical angle before launching the ASAT missile; basically the same approach is being used for this. Minimal modifications required to the F-15A back then.

1980: these F-15s should be used to destroy satellites by flying to a high altitude really fast
2016: these F-15s should be used to launch satellites by flying to a high altitude really fast


----------



## dorsetknob (Sep 1, 2016)

broken pixel said:


> Love F-104 Starfighters.



was not so well loved in Germany where it was nicknamed Various unpleasent names
A less charitable name, "The Flying Coffin" from the translation of the common German public name of _Fliegender Sarg_. The F-104 was also called _Witwenmacher_ ("Widowmaker"), or _Erdnagel_ ("ground nail") – the official military term for a tent peg

A  Commonplace grim joke in Germany that the cheapest way of obtaining a Starfighter was to buy a small patch of land and simply wait for one to crash


----------



## Ferrum Master (Sep 1, 2016)

tabascosauz said:


> these F-15s should be used to launch satellites by flying to a high altitude really fast



I am afraid F15 really is not capable of doing it due to the structural problems. It already suffered from cracks, it cannot hold any stronger engine also because of the frame. The starfighter coffin is better in that department.

Yes the Foxbat would be a good choice too... but it is russian...

But really a modern Blackbird using modern controls and avionics and metalurgy would be a better choice. Even using same proven engine and frame design to reduce costs, as the concept has proven to work fine. Creating a new project from scratch would be waste of money.


----------



## tabascosauz (Sep 1, 2016)

Ferrum Master said:


> I am afraid F15 really is not capable of doing it due to the structural problems. It already suffered from cracks, it cannot hold any stronger engine also because of the frame. The starfighter coffin is better in that department.
> 
> Yes the Foxbat would be a good choice too... but it is russian...
> 
> But really a modern Blackbird using modern controls and avionics and metalurgy would be a better choice. Even using same proven engine and frame design to reduce costs, as the concept has proven to work fine. Creating a new project from scratch would be waste of money.



The longeron cracking fiasco dates back to 2007. In '07-'08 USAF grounded then cleared then re-grounded then cleared the aircraft again. The whole fleet of Eagles is fatigued but the real problem is the early F-15s manufactured from 1978-1985. USAF isn't giving up on F-15s; the concerned A-D models are getting the upgrades they need to continue to serve in USAF as well as Air National Guard, where F-16s are just as old, F-22s are not enough, and F-35s are nowhere to be found.

Although F-15E was designed for strike missions as opposed to F-15A's 100% air superiority , it is a much more up-to-date version of the Eagle and has minor improvements as well as generally being newer and manufactured to a better standard than A-D. I don't see why it can't be modified slightly to carry this payload. They didn't have the E model back in the ASM-135's day, that's why they didn't use it.

The F-15 is definitely capable of doing both things mentioned. In both scenarios, it doesn't somehow need a stronger engine, as it's already well capable of the near-vertical climb and the high speed necessary to deliver the payload. The fighter doesn't need to be faster/stronger; it's just a virtual "1st stage" for the rocket. The rocket has to separate, get to a safe distance from the aircraft then activate its own boosters to get to orbit. I imagine the ASAT was even harder to deliver as it didn't just need to get to that predetermined altitude that a satellite needs, instead, it knocked satellites out of the sky through a kinetic kill, enough to leave just the metal parts floating around and the plastic parts virtually disappeared from the energy of the impact.

Even if earlier F-15As are developing cracks in their airframe, they still haven't been falling out of the sky and embracing the Earth like the F-104 lol . If one of the WWII Luftwaffe's most famous aces refused to fly the F-104 for the West German Luftwaffe because it was so unsafe, I can't imagine that it would be better at pushing its specified limits than the F-15.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Sep 2, 2016)

I suspect they choose the F-104 for the same reason the SR-71 can fly so high and fast: the adjustable inlet cone preceding the engine.  It allows the engine to _ingest_ the sonic wave which allows it to operate at altitudes otherwise impossible.  It's a feature of a ramjet engine and the design only works at 2+ mach.






But seriously, Blackstar (based on XB-70 Valkyrie) was the only way this could happen and it isn't clear whether it even did.  The XB-70 could carry a quarter million pounds of payload up to 74,000 feet at mach 3.  With new engines, a scramjet under the engines, and fly by wire, it could probably reach at least 80,000 feet if not higher.  It needs 46,000 gallons of fuel though.  Picture that.


----------



## repman244 (Sep 5, 2016)

Ferrum Master said:


> I am afraid F15 really is not capable of doing it due to the structural problems. It already suffered from cracks, it cannot hold any stronger engine also because of the frame. The starfighter coffin is better in that department.
> 
> Yes the Foxbat would be a good choice too... but it is russian...
> 
> But really a modern Blackbird using modern controls and avionics and metalurgy would be a better choice. Even using same proven engine and frame design to reduce costs, as the concept has proven to work fine. Creating a new project from scratch would be waste of money.



So what if it's russian, everyone is using Soyuz to get into space anyway so I don't see a problem...they are old yes but they can reach very high altitudes.


----------



## Ferrum Master (Sep 5, 2016)

repman244 said:


> So what if it's russian, everyone is using Soyuz



Haven't you heard of the sanctions? Hello? If you wish to derail the thread go on. Soyuz is retired since past year... last Proton modules are sent up with remaining parts, even this thing is screwed. Soyuz 2 is canned because Ukraine Yuzhnoye's plant went bankrupt - because of obvious reasons also. Nothing new in that department.

Still the costs realizing such model cannot be even compared as it's more cheaper. Also wishing more luck to SpaceX and our European Ariane 6.

Seeking an alternative is vital, and I am surprised of such a rational idea emerging again since 60ties.


----------



## repman244 (Sep 6, 2016)

Ferrum Master said:


> Haven't you heard of the sanctions? Hello? If you wish to derail the thread go on. Soyuz is retired since past year... last Proton modules are sent up with remaining parts, even this thing is screwed. Soyuz 2 is canned because Ukraine Yuzhnoye's plant went bankrupt - because of obvious reasons also. Nothing new in that department.
> 
> Still the costs realizing such model cannot be even compared as it's more cheaper. Also wishing more luck to SpaceX and our European Ariane 6.
> 
> Seeking an alternative is vital, and I am surprised of such a rational idea emerging again since 60ties.



Where are you getting all that information from? Soyuz retired? Since when? It's still used (last launch was in beginning of July) and as far as I know it is the only way to get people into space - not to mention it's still the cheapest and the safest.
Sanctions? Those are a joke, the trade is still going on since countries depend so much on others - example is the RD-180 rocket engine that the US uses and they still haven't made or found an alternative to it.


----------



## CAPSLOCKSTUCK (Sep 6, 2016)

From Wikli

TsSKB-Progress has halted production of Soyuz-U in April 2015; a few units remain to be launched until the end of 2016


Let us all hope that the recent Spacex failure doesnt bring a premature end to manned flights to ISS


----------



## Ferrum Master (Sep 6, 2016)

CAPSLOCKSTUCK said:


> Let us all hope that the recent Spacex failure doesnt bring a premature end to manned flights to ISS



You forgot the Boeing CST-100 capsule. They both are set for next two years. But yea... Baikonur is also closing down, as Soyuz-2 needs new launch pads, meanwhile the new modifications and being man-rated. IMHO they are not ready for that also and nobody also has given money to Roscosmos for that. Btw during first launch this year Soyuz-2.1b had engine problems, luckily they managed to stay into orbit.

There for the fuss about the last engine batch for Atlas rockets to fill the gap.


----------



## CAPSLOCKSTUCK (Sep 6, 2016)

A crewed flight, using CST 100 carrying one NASA astronaut and one Boeing test pilot to the International Space Station, is scheduled for February 2018.

There are 4 planned Soyuz launches to ISS before then.


----------



## dorsetknob (Sep 6, 2016)

Oh and as regards to Sanctions  the ISS And Related Programs were Excluded from US Applied Sanctions
For  Reasons that should not need Explaining here ( You Are Smart Enough i hope to understand why !!!!! )


----------



## Ferrum Master (Sep 6, 2016)

CAPSLOCKSTUCK said:


> There are 4 planned Soyuz launches to ISS before then.



Only two of them are the old analog Soyuz-U. Very mixed info around, they mix the rockets and doesn't know those are completely different things. IMHO there are only few old ones left. That leaves the question open for the future ones due to reliability reasons.

But... meanwhile China is spitting on everyone and do as they please with Tiangong-2 lol. That's totally amusing.


----------

