The largest aircraft in history

120
According to the blog bmpdThe 31 of May 2017 in Mojave, California, was used to roll out almost completed construction of the Stratolaunch Model 351 carrier aircraft (also sometimes referred to as “Roc”, in fact, the official name is not currently assigned) of the Stratolaunch air launch system, created by the American company Stratolaunch Systems, which is part of the Vulcan Aerospace Corporation.



The Stratolaunch Model 351 two-body aircraft is the largest aircraft in stories. Its wing span is 117 m, the length of the machine is 73 m, the maximum take-off weight is 590 tons, the weight of the suspended payload is 230 tons. As a result, the plane shifted the wing span to the second position of the Soviet An-225 "Mriya" (88,4 m), which at the same time retains an advantage in length (84 m) and maximum take-off weight (640 tons).

The plane should be lifted into the air by 6 Pratt & Whitney PW4056 by-pass turbojet engines with a thrust of 25 tons, taken from two decommissioned Boeing 747-400 airliners. The landing gear of the aircraft is 28-wheeled, the take-off distance with full load should be calculated to be 3800 m. The maximum flight range with full load will not exceed 3700 km.

The machine is designed to be used as a carrier for the aerospace system Stratolaunch, created by the American company Stratolaunch Systems. The aircraft is designed to launch space launch vehicles using the "air launch" method, which will be carried out from a height of approximately 10500 m. The launch vehicle should be suspended under the central part of the wing between the fuselage. During the design and construction, the SpaceX Falcon 9 Air and Orbital ATK Pegasus II launch vehicles were successively replaced as payload variants, and now the Orbital ATK Pegasus XL, a long-known light launch vehicle used for "airborne starts from the "normal" aircraft in the US from 1990 (launch weight 23,2 tons, payload weight 443 kg), and for which there was no need to create such a giant carrier - although it is possible to carry and launch from it in one flight up to three missiles - carry Lei Pegasus XL. In this regard, the future of Stratolaunch is not yet quite definite.



The project was announced in December 2011. The construction of the aircraft was carried out in a giant hangar specially built for this in 2012 year in Mojave. The program is implemented with a time lag of about two years. At the moment, the beginning of flight tests of the aircraft carrier is expected at the end of 2017, the first demonstration space launch from it - in 2019. Start of commercial launches will be possible in this case from the 2020 year.
120 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. +2
    1 June 2017 08: 20
    In this regard, the future of Stratolaunch is not yet completely certain.

    Well, in extreme cases, they will carry bulk cargo in a hanging container.
    1. +10
      1 June 2017 08: 25
      Wedmak
      Well, in extreme cases, they will carry bulk cargo in a hanging container.
      What nafig loads to carry!
      The maximum flight range with full load will not exceed 3700 km.
      And for take-off and landing, not a simple airfield is needed.
      the take-off distance with full load should be estimated at 3800 m.
      wassat
      1. +7
        1 June 2017 09: 07
        Quote: Observer2014
        takeoff and landing is not a simple airfield needed.
        the take-off distance with full load should be estimated at 3800 m.
        wassat

        Not every airfield will do, but it’s not so tragic either: there are a lot of suitable ones. You confuse take-off distance with take-off run. For example, the IL-62 take-off distance of 3,3 km with a take-off run of 1,8 ... 2 km. The landing gear is going to be planted on high-class, but still ordinary runways, and the chassis says: 20 tons of take-off weight presses on each wheel, this is the usual value for modern aircraft. For example, the take-off weight of Airbus-321 can reach up to 90+ tons with four main wheels. The length of modern runways at large airports, such as DMD or Heathrow, reaches 4km (EMNIP, there is even 4,5km). Well, landing is quite simple - such a carrier in flight is released not only from fuel, but also from the payload.
        Of course, if the goal is to launch from the Equator, then it is more difficult to find a suitable airfield there.
    2. +5
      1 June 2017 08: 31
      Quote: Wedmak

      Well, in extreme cases, they will carry bulk cargo in a hanging container.

      The tropospheric section is the most difficult for the launch vehicle, and such a system eliminates it in principle. If the world has not completely gone crazy, then orders will fall. Not from the first year of operation, of course, but they will "try it out" in the end.
      1. +2
        1 June 2017 08: 49
        Quote: Avis
        The tropospheric section is the most difficult for the launch vehicle, and such a system eliminates it in principle.

        Like this? It says here that the flight altitude is 10500. By what principle is the troposphere excluded?
        1. +1
          1 June 2017 09: 08
          Quote: Tusv
          Quote: Avis
          The tropospheric section is the most difficult for the launch vehicle, and such a system eliminates it in principle.

          Like this? It says here that the flight altitude is 10500. By what principle is the troposphere excluded?

          Literally. Read the definition of the troposphere.
          By the way, in some cases “only” 90% of the troposphere will be excluded, but this already solves almost all problems.
          1. 0
            1 June 2017 09: 14
            Quote: Avis
            Do you know the definition of the troposphere?

            The upper layer of the troposphere is 12 km in temperate latitudes. 1,5 km is not enough
            1. +9
              1 June 2017 09: 38
              Quote: Tusv
              Quote: Avis
              Do you know the definition of the troposphere?

              The upper layer of the troposphere is 12 km in temperate latitudes. 1,5 km is not enough

              The "top layer" walks depending on many factors. Usually 11km in the middle latitudes; polar, okay, we will not touch. Our tropopause is sometimes caught even on the Tu-134.
              But, again, even “throwing away” “only” 90% of the troposphere is already a huge relief for the rocket. At the bottom there were chatter, water, 60% of all air and the cries of environmentalists.
            2. 0
              1 June 2017 09: 45
              Quote: Tusv
              Quote: Avis
              Do you know the definition of the troposphere?

              The upper layer of the troposphere is 12 km in temperate latitudes. 1,5 km is not enough

              This is if you count on Wikipedia. feel
              The troposphere (other Greek τρόπος - “turn”, “change” and σφαῖρα - “ball”) is the lower, most studied layer of the atmosphere, 8–10 km high in the polar regions, up to 10–12 km in temperate latitudes, equator - 16-18 km.

              But some who bully believes that the troposphere will be more!
              In temperate latitudes, the average depth of the troposphere is 17 km, in tropical areas - up to 20 km, and near the poles - 7-10 km. Http://geografya.ru/atmosfera/sloi_atmosfery/t
              roposfera.html

              But it’s energetically most profitable to launch it from the equator - there the acceleration of gravity is slightly less. And based on the enlarged layer of the troposphere, this advantage is somewhat leveled during an air launch. True, the biggest savings are the lack of the need to build capital structures in the form of an extremely expensive spaceport. hi
              1. +4
                1 June 2017 09: 59
                Found what to read. But in this case, everything is correct. Just why do you think that you refuted me? :)
                Quote: andj61
                in temperate latitudes up to 10-12 km

                ... and the average is 11km, as I wrote.
                In the tropics, of course, the troposphere is higher. But even 3/4 of the troposphere is thrown out there. Few? No, that’s enough. Even at altitudes of 9-10 km, most of the tropospheric troubles remain below; in our conditions, the conditional border can be considered 6-7 km.
                Running at the equator is beneficial not by reducing gravity (it is negligible), but by the speed of the equator itself, which is 460 m / s, while the speed of other points is only cos (latitude) * 460.
                Infrastructure will decrease slightly. The launch pad, of course, is a lot, but the remaining objects will be preserved.
                1. +5
                  1 June 2017 13: 42
                  I don’t know how you tied the troposphere here (with regards to your discussion “sorry for interrupting”), but that’s not the point at all.
                  Half of the total mass of the atmosphere is concentrated in the lower 5
                  km, three quarters in the lower 10 km, nine tenths in the lower
                  20 km.
                  The layered structure of the atmosphere is the result of temperature
                  changes at different heights. From the surface of the earth upward
                  The following layers exist:
                  - troposphere,
                  - stratosphere,
                  - mesosphere,
                  - thermosphere,
                  - exosphere.
                  The name of the lowest layer of the atmosphere starting at
                  the earth’s surface, comes from the Greek word "tropos",
                  which means "rotate, mix." Troposphere height
                  unstable and depends on the geographical latitude of the place, time
                  year circulation. Atmospheric boundary at the same latitude
                  in summer higher and lower in winter. In temperate latitudes, the power of at-
                  Mososphere is 9-12 km, close to the poles it is smaller -
                  about 8-10 km, to the equator more - 16-18 km.
                  in separate
                  limited layers of the troposphere can be observed inversion
                  11
                  (increase in temperature with height) or isothermal (temperature
                  ra does not change with height) [21].

                  This is basically (the beginning of the temperature increase and to its other direction of temperature change) in the common people and is called the troposphere .... I myself caught this border (military pilot) in the winter for 6000 meters. The inversion trail from the aircraft becomes visible precisely at the crossing of this border ... Observe the inversion in different conditions ... Civilian aircrafts usually go at levels of 9100-10600 m
                  G.N. Grebenyuk
                  G.K.Khodzhaeva
                  METEOROLOGY AND CLIMATOLOGY
                  http://nvsu.ru/ru/Intellekt/1134/Grebenyuk%20G.N.
                  ,%20Hodzhaeva%20G.K.%20Meteorologiya%20i%20klimat
                  ologiya%20-%20Uch-prakt%20posobie%20-%202012.pdf

                  And the essence of starting from the media, all the same, is explained by what I wrote at the beginning ...
                  Half of the total mass of the atmosphere is concentrated in the lower 5
                  km, three quarters in the lower 10 km, nine tenths in the lower
                  20 km.
                  ... hence the fuel consumption and, accordingly, the payload ..., and of course, the higher the better .... hi
                  1. +1
                    1 June 2017 14: 14
                    I don’t understand why you wrote all this. Partially, in other words, you wrote what I wrote, partially delved into the jungle away from the topic of discussion.

                    It:
                    Quote: NIKNN

                    This is basically (the beginning of the temperature increase and to its other direction of temperature change) in the common people and is called the troposphere .... I myself caught this border (military pilot) in the winter for 6000 meters. The inversion trail from the plane becomes visible precisely at the intersection of this border ...

                    This is not a topic, but I will comment. The troposphere is characterized by a constant decrease in temperature from a simple height. The stratosphere is a constant temperature (not an increase).
                    The formation of an inversion / condensation trace does not depend on the boundary of the troposphere, but only on the outboard temperature and the temperature of the exhaust. It also depends on fuel consumption, but this is a secondary factor. The engines of the older generations give an inversion trail at higher altitudes than more modern ones. (All else being equal).
                    1. +3
                      1 June 2017 14: 21
                      Moreover, your discussion of the troposphere with your opponent and its impact on the launch are somewhat erroneous ...
                      The main idea was:
                      Half of the total mass of the atmosphere is concentrated in the lower 5
                      km, three quarters in the lower 10 km, nine tenths in the lower
                      20 km.
                      The main reason for this is the desire to launch from an aircraft carrier .... and the troposphere is here ..., well, how it is not completely correctly defined in the concept of your dispute. Everything else is an attempt to correct the concept of the troposphere.
                      If something didn’t work ... I apologize deeply! hi (I immediately apologized for interfering in your discussion) hi so as a rule I try not to fit ...
                      1. +3
                        1 June 2017 14: 32
                        [quote = NIKNN] To the fact that your discussion with the opponent of the troposphere and its impact on the launch are somewhat erroneous ...
                        The main idea was: [quote] Half of the entire mass of the atmosphere is concentrated in the lower 5
                        km, three quarters in the lower 10 km, nine tenths in the lower
                        20 km. [/ Quote]

                        I wrote this:
                        [Quote]
                        even “throwing away” “only” 90% of the troposphere is already a huge relief for the rocket. Remained below chatterwater 60% of all air and the cries of environmentalists. [/ quote]


                        When the “intervention” leads to the introduction of new clarifications and new information, this is not an intervention, but a fresh stream and cannot but be welcomed.
                    2. +2
                      1 June 2017 19: 25
                      I can’t answer in the comment thread for you, I took it a little higher ...
                      even “throwing away” “only” 90% of the troposphere is already a huge relief for the rocket. At the bottom there were chatter, water, 60% of all air and the cries of environmentalists

                      Here the dispute is inappropriate ... :)
                      The formation of an inversion / condensation trace does not depend on the boundary of the troposphere, but only on the outboard temperature and the temperature of the exhaust.

                      You see, the concepts of the troposphere and tropopause are very often confused ... here they begin to break spears ..., the tropopause is the transition ... (excuse me, I bear science again) (it seems to be familiar with the question, but the household routine does not allow me to focus on the question ... feel )
                      1. 0
                        1 June 2017 19: 37
                        Quote: NIKNN

                        You see, the concepts of the troposphere and tropopause are very often confused ...

                        I do not confuse.
                    3. +2
                      1 June 2017 19: 41
                      Again, I can’t answer on the branch .. I don’t know why? ...
                      Avis Today, 19:37 ↑
                      Quote: NIKNN
                      You see, the concepts of the troposphere and tropopause are very often confused ...
                      I do not confuse.
                      I have no doubt about it drinks
          2. +2
            1 June 2017 17: 41
            Arthur Clark, “Space Odyssey 2001” written in 1961. Here they are finally going to realize ... He really doesn’t have a launch vehicle with GDP but accelerated on some sort of railgun.
            1. +1
              1 June 2017 18: 51
              Quote: alexmach
              Arthur Clark, "Space Odyssey 2001" written in 1961

              1968.
              He really doesn’t have a carrier aircraft starting with GDP

              There was no vertical take-off at the booster stage, nor even a vertical landing.

              and accelerated on some kind of railgun.

              The earliest known example to me in a work of art is the movie "Space Flight", 1935, however, there the rocket accelerated itself, without supplying energy.
              And in Kolpakov’s novel “Alpha Eridanus” (1960), the launch overpass (“railgun”) will be larger:
              "a cyclopean overpass, a curved parabola spread across the southern part of the sky; like a one-footed giant, she walked her kilometer-long supports along the valleys and passes, rising higher and higher to the stars, until her exit arch reached the top of the Jomolungma.

              "Preparing to launch the ship," Russov thought, and was not mistaken. At intervals of five minutes, a siren sang two more times, and suddenly all the sounds of an awakening city were covered by the rumble of starting engines. The ship’s greenish body appeared in the gaps of the structures forming the trellis tunnel lattice. The spaceship was rapidly gaining speed. Luminous flux from the nozzles of the starting trolleyk, interrupted by the opaque details of the tunnel, broke into separate dazzling flashes. Finally, the ship escaped from the last link of the flyover and immediately sank in the radiance of the sun. "
    3. +9
      1 June 2017 08: 31
      Quote: Wedmak
      will carry bulk cargo in a hanging container.

      And what kind of cargo you can carry - the jumper between the fuselages looks flimsy. request
      1. +2
        1 June 2017 08: 49
        weight of suspended payload - 230 tons.

        Are you not enough?
        1. +2
          1 June 2017 18: 21
          Quote: Wedmak
          Are you not enough?

          And this is a CONFIRMED fact - the mass of the suspended load? hi
      2. +9
        1 June 2017 09: 12
        Quote: Ingvar 72

        And what kind of cargo you can carry - the jumper between the fuselages looks flimsy. request

        You are waiting in all the leading KB of the world. They badly need a solidist who makes calculations from photographs, drawings, and an oral description. And then they, fools, spend billions of dollars on computers, programs and strength tests.
        1. +13
          1 June 2017 09: 25
          Quote: Avis
          And then they, fools, spend billions of dollars on computers, programs and strength tests.

          Once there is a first start, then we will find out who is who. And blowing in the pipe is one thing, and starting with wild flow disturbances in the stabilizer region is completely different, two unconnected small-sized stabilizers will oscillate individually twisting the center section wink
          1. +6
            1 June 2017 09: 40
            Quote: Locksmith

            Once there is a first start, then we will find out who is who.

            Do not count others for. This is fraught, first of all, for you. Distorts the world around us.
            1. +7
              1 June 2017 10: 08
              Quote: Avis
              Do not count others for. This is fraught, first of all, for you. Distorts the world around us.

              You already have it apparently distorted - you should not evaluate others on your own and even more so do not teach. wink
              1. +2
                1 June 2017 10: 26
                Quote: Locksmith

                You already have it apparently distorted - you should not evaluate others on your own and even more so do not teach. wink

                Do not climb with arguments into an area in which you do not understand anything.
                Who got this nonsense?
                Once there is a first start, then we will find out who is who. And blowing in the pipe is one thing, and starting with wild flow disturbances in the stabilizer region is completely different, two unconnected small-sized stabilizers will oscillate individually twisting the center section wink
                1. +9
                  1 June 2017 10: 34
                  Quote: Avis
                  Do not climb with arguments into an area in which you do not understand anything.
                  Who got this nonsense?

                  Dear friend ! You should not pose as the general designer of all times and peoples, this is no more nonsense than yours. This is a forum and everyone has the right to defend their opinion reasonably, I expressed my own, if you do not like something in my statement, you can give good arguments against .
                  I don’t need to get personal. My experience with aircraft modeling is that this configuration will have major problems. And do not think that aircraft models do not understand anything, most often all large planes are born exactly as aircraft models, but often forget when scaling, the strength of the materials does not increase due to the increase in scale, it remains the same, so the strength of the model can be several times greater than the strength of a real plane.
                  1. The comment was deleted.
                    1. The comment was deleted.
                      1. The comment was deleted.
          2. 0
            1 June 2017 10: 11
            And blowing in the pipe is one thing, and starting with wild flow disturbances in the stabilizer region is completely different

            It's funny to listen to you. 1. Where will the disturbances come from if the rocket is dropped, and then turn on the engine? This is purely due to the safety of the launch. 2. Why would stabilizers fluctuate? From what? Why are they not connected? 3. Why would a cetroplane (two center sections?) Be twisted?
            Speaking of airplanes. This one ... flew!

            How it is generally kept in the air is also unknown.

            It flies ...

            And this one too ...

            And you say spinning ...
            1. +6
              1 June 2017 10: 15
              Quote: Wedmak
              And you say spinning ...

              And at least one of you listed carries tons on the center section of 220?
              There is a good saying among techies:
              if something can theoretically break, it will break almost always laughing
              1. +1
                1 June 2017 10: 27
                And at least one of you listed carries tons on the center section of 220?

                No matter how many tons there are, the main thing is to correctly calculate the load.
                if something can theoretically break, it will break almost always

                Is that how you distorted Murphy’s law? Technicians usually have calculations first, then trials, and then fortunetelling - will it break or not.
                1. +6
                  1 June 2017 10: 59
                  No matter how many tons there are, the main thing is to correctly calculate the load.


                  They will calculate and do - strong and heavy. The locksmith is right in one thing - from the point of view of weight saving, it was necessary to close the "contour" with a jumper - preferably with a horizontal tail on the top of the keels. And so - you can make the most awkward constructions fly, there would be a desire (or urgent need)
                  1. 0
                    1 June 2017 11: 04
                    Quote: dauria
                    from the point of view of weight saving it was necessary to close the "contour" with a jumper - preferably with a horizontal tail on the top of the keels.

                    “In terms of weight saving”, one of the most in need of this aircraft was the Global Flyer.

                    PS / by the way, it’s not necessarily durable, it’s heavy, as well as hard. I would not be surprised if the HFF fluctuate markedly at low altitudes. Aeroelasticity, panimash ... :)
                2. +6
                  1 June 2017 13: 54
                  Quote: Wedmak

                  Is that how you distorted Murphy’s law? Technicians usually have calculations first, then trials, and then fortunetelling - will it break or not.

                  I suspect besides these notorious laws of Murphy - there are a lot of their own, homegrown, techies are observant people wink
                  After your phrase "and then fortunetelling" often add the expression "dancing with a tambourine" laughing , sometimes the part perfectly normal calculated on a supercomputer behaves like the last outbred belay This is a striking example - how many times have the F35 power set been recounted because he had a cracked carbon super-duper fezulage? And all that did not withstand CALCULATED loads. laughing
          3. The comment was deleted.
        2. 0
          1 June 2017 18: 11
          Quote: Avis
          And then they, fools, spend billions of dollars on computers, programs and strength tests.

          And some arrogant ones try to be clever, taking for the truth of last resort "it looks flimsy." Authority in the field of aircraft? Sopromat there did not seem to be canceled. wink
          1. 0
            1 June 2017 18: 55
            Quote: Ingvar 72

            And some arrogant ones try to be clever, taking for the truth of last resort "it looks flimsy."

            Exactly...
            the jumper between the fuselages looks flimsy.

            Do not recognize the author of this nonsense?

            Authority in the field of aircraft? Sopromat there did not seem to be canceled. wink

            "some know-it-alls try to be smart"
            Very self-critical. It’s only a pity that the “Ingvar” memory is not enough to keep it in my head for more than five seconds.
            1. 0
              1 June 2017 19: 01
              But in fact, one gee-gee-gee, and nothing logical. So what about sopromat? Or again, "nonsense", "nonsense", etc.? Then it’s not worth it, I take off my hat to your “intellect”! laughing
              1. The comment was deleted.
                1. The comment was deleted.
                  1. The comment was deleted.
  2. +10
    1 June 2017 08: 28
    "Finally, reasonable speech ..." Air start is the best solution at the moment. If it weren’t for all sorts of spotted knees, we would have had the An-1980-MAKS complex back in the late 225s.
    1. +1
      1 June 2017 11: 39
      By the way, I read that in the USSR there were similar proposals back in the 70s, but they were rejected as rubbish, or a prototype was built .. "The Seagull" seems. Do not judge strictly, alas, I do not remember. But the fact that they didn’t put it into practice seemed like a simple idea. Sorry
      1. +2
        1 June 2017 11: 45
        Quote: ohtandur
        By the way, I read that in the USSR there were similar proposals back in the 70s, but they were rejected as rubbish, or a prototype was built .. "The Seagull" seems.

        If you are talking about the Lozino-Lozinsky “Spiral” system, then the project was closed not because of the “all this is nonsense” position, but ran into problems of the first (atmospheric) stage. It was too difficult for the then level of aviation development.
        1. 0
          1 June 2017 14: 45
          yes, it is the Spiral. Alas, I only read from a book of alternative history of Kalashnikov, therefore I knew only the author’s opinion about this project, and not the true story. There he writes that the designer came across a wall of misunderstanding and hatched the idea for a long time.
          1. +1
            1 June 2017 15: 05
            The idea then belongs to Zander, if not earlier. I myself didn’t really read anything on the “Spiral” (which I am ashamed to admit), but, I think, the basic information can be found on “buran.ru”: http://www.buran.ru/htm/spiral.htm
      2. +1
        1 June 2017 16: 29
        In the USSR, there was one feature, if one of the designers invented something new, then usually it was put into practice. It didn’t always go into series, but ideas were worked out and, if possible, embodied in real products. Starting with ekranoplanes, and ending with the same "Spiral", which they embodied and experienced, at least at the level of a full-scale model. So, in some aspects, engineering in the Soviet Union was much ahead of the rest.
        1. 0
          1 June 2017 17: 47
          Quote: Orionvit
          if one of the designers invented something new, then usually it was put into practice

          "From time to time" and "not usually."
          The "spiral" that they embodied and experienced, at least at the level of a full-scale model

          Show me the "full-scale model" of the first stage. Not a layout.
          1. 0
            1 June 2017 18: 09
            Quote: Avis
            "From time to time" and "not usually."

            First, if opportunities allowed, then usually. And secondly
            Show me the "full-scale model" of the first stage. Not a layout.
            Everyone who is at least a little interested in the issue knows that the first step in terms of technical complexity, at that time, to design and implement in the product was problematic. But the prototype of the orbital aircraft was tested (albeit without launching into orbit), and many of the developments then embodied in the “Buran”.
            1. The comment was deleted.
              1. The comment was deleted.
                1. The comment was deleted.
  3. +1
    1 June 2017 08: 29
    The plane must fly into the air
    So I don’t understand, did he even take off at least once?
    1. +2
      1 June 2017 08: 34
      no, so far amphibian
    2. +3
      1 June 2017 09: 16
      Quote: Barkhan
      So I don’t understand, did he even take off at least once?


      Well, maybe take off once. With such a flimsy-looking middle wing and separate tail plumage nafig will fall apart.
      1. +7
        1 June 2017 09: 41
        Quote: lysyj bob

        Well, maybe take off once. With such a flimsy-looking middle wing and separate tail plumage nafig will fall apart.

        The census of the "most boisterous" continues.
  4. +3
    1 June 2017 08: 30
    What was the bicycle invented for? They would take Mriya and modify it a little.
    1. +3
      1 June 2017 09: 24
      Where to get it from? 1 side 88 year is all. Almost 30 years of operation.
  5. +3
    1 June 2017 08: 37
    We slammed the idea of ​​WK.2 (White Knight Two) and made it more monstrous. The craving for gigantomania and "the most super-duper" is indestructible.
    1. +2
      1 June 2017 09: 18
      Quote: g1washntwn
      We slammed the idea of ​​WK.2 (White Knight Two) and made it more monstrous.

      Well, firstly, this is the development of Scaled Composites. Secondly, how do you see the launch of a 200-ton launch vehicle from an aircraft the size of the White Knight?
      The main thing is that they steal it? Two-body layout? I hasten to disappoint - the first two-fuselage was built already in the 1910s. Including with the placement between the fuselages of the payload.
      1. +2
        1 June 2017 11: 48
        Paul Allen spread Microsoft's grandmother when the developments on WK2 + SS2 were ready but the accident both dropped shares, grabbed the developments and muddied the new company Volcano Aerospace.
        Isn’t it "slamming"?
        Payload? Well, I did not dispute. This monster was concocted for commercial launches, under Pegasus-2 this whole barn was piled up and not so that the rich Pinocchio would roll in orbits.
        Measuring around 128 ft long, the payload will be encased in a 16.4 ft diameter fairing. Gross lift off (or drop) weight is expected to be over 465,000 lb, with the air launch vehicle (Pegasus-II) able to deliver 13,500 lb to LEO, or 9,900 lb to a highly inclined (HIO) orbit, or 4,500 lb to GTO.
        1. 0
          1 June 2017 12: 09
          Quote: g1washntwn
          Paul Allen spread Microsoft's grandmother when the developments on WK2 + SS2 were ready but the accident both dropped shares, grabbed the developments and muddied the new company Volcano Aerospace.
          Isn’t it "slamming"?

          No.
          I don’t know who’s got loot, shares and general management, but the developer is “SS”, “Stratopuskach” - “Scaled Composites”.
          1. +2
            1 June 2017 13: 19
            The argument is about nothing. The idea is Allen, the developer is SC, now Allen in the other company is doing the same, but larger and more economically attractive. How patents came to him and the development of another company can only be guessed at. Assignment schemes of other people's developments (namely, to slam) a wagon and a trolley.
            1. +1
              1 June 2017 13: 36
              Quote: g1washntwn
              The argument is about nothing. Idea - Allen, Developer - SC

              I don’t know who Allen is, but the first (in our time) aircraft of such a scheme (a catamaran with an unlinked GO) appeared precisely in Rutan’s company, although Heinkel had thought of it even earlier. And whoever invented it there, working for Rutan, is, of course, an interesting question, but this is the second.
              1. +3
                1 June 2017 14: 00
                As I understand it, your next post will be who invented the wheel? Ek you rushing with a phrase about close family relationships WK.2 and ROC .... cooler than with "Espumizana" :)
                1. +3
                  1 June 2017 14: 04
                  Quote: g1washntwn
                  As I understand it, your next post will be who invented the wheel? Ek you rushing with a phrase about close family relationships WK.2 and ROC .... cooler than with "Espumizana" :)

                  Hmm. Go ... to the people.
      2. +2
        1 June 2017 16: 10
        If this pepelats gets into a “hard” air hole, it will fold in half.
        1. The comment was deleted.
          1. +5
            1 June 2017 16: 24
            Yes, however, you are inadequate!
    2. +3
      1 June 2017 09: 29
      That's right, they “slammed” an already tested and tested idea and built the device in another class and destination. It just so happened that the trucks are bigger / heavier than cars.
      1. +1
        1 June 2017 09: 41
        Quote: Großer Feldherr
        That's right, "slammed"

        Who???
  6. +5
    1 June 2017 08: 41
    I imagine how this pepelats needs to be synchronized, well, if in flight, let’s say the left tail will go to climb, and the right one will be reset, then these two fezulazh will bend, like a drill, an enchanting picture in the sky ........
    1. 0
      1 June 2017 08: 50
      I imagine how this pepelats needs to be synchronized

      The remote control system is far from news in the aircraft industry.
      1. +2
        1 June 2017 09: 12
        What a beauty, when it will be suppressed by EW, I’m a radio amateur, with a category and a call sign, so, here you take a 5-watt carrying case Yaesu FT-270, turn on 5 watts of power and you can make fun of it - turn off all kinds of Chinese monitors for one or two, even televisions fall into the blue screen ....... fun shorter ....
      2. +5
        1 June 2017 09: 29
        Quote: Wedmak
        The remote control system is far from news in the aircraft industry.


        The mechanical rigidity of the structure is not able to replace any electrical system.
        Quote: AlexVas44
        Such an operation with engines is not clear. No new? Expensive? ... or?

        Apparently they understand that new engines do not make sense to ruin. The function of this miracle is to earn grandmas and set a record, at least some. If it also rises into the air, it’s generally great, but if not, well, to hell with it: “Well, I couldn’t, I couldn’t.” Although I’m far from the aircraft industry, I’m still a techie, and I don’t believe that two fuselages with a separate tail unit will be able to synchronously stay in the air, especially with strong turbulence.
        1. +2
          1 June 2017 10: 18
          The mechanical rigidity of the structure is not able to replace any electrical system.

          It's right. Only I strongly doubt that you are able to calculate the strength of a structure from a photograph.
        2. 0
          1 June 2017 16: 37
          and I don’t believe that two fuselages with separate tails can simultaneously stay in the air, especially with strong turbulence
          In this age of computers, anything is possible. Even such an pepelats as the F -117, which, due to its aerodynamics, could not fly in principle with the help of several computers, nevertheless somehow flew. Even more, when one of them lost one of its keels in flight, the computer adjusted its control so quickly that the pilot did not even notice it.
    2. +2
      1 June 2017 09: 23
      Quote: AVGUST
      I imagine how this pepelats needs to be synchronized, well, if in flight, let’s say the left tail will go to climb, and the right one will be reset, then these two fezulazh will bend, like a drill, an enchanting picture in the sky ........

      No need to submit. Just look at the GlobalFlyer and White Knight flight footage. It is clear that without the help of the EDSU it could not have done it. But two-body with separate plumage flew 3/4 centuries ago.


      Including, do not worry so much for them. :) Everything will be fine.
  7. +4
    1 June 2017 08: 45
    The plane should be lifted into the air by 6 Pratt & Whitney PW4056 by-pass turbojet engines with a thrust of 25 tons, taken from two decommissioned Boeing 747-400 airliners.


    Such an operation with engines is not clear. No new? Expensive? ... or?
    1. +3
      1 June 2017 16: 42
      So they wrote already, used engines are not a pity. From here some doubt is laid that they are somehow not very sure of success.
      1. 0
        1 June 2017 18: 06
        Quote: Orionvit
        So they wrote already, used engines are not a pity. From here some doubt is laid that they are somehow not very sure of success.

        Drop dead "wise" judgment. :) It turns out that NASA was "not very sure" of the success of launching the Skylab, and the "Argus" from "IM" to "IM" were thrown from the fact that the next board will not take off or not.
  8. +10
    1 June 2017 08: 58
    ... The Stratolaunch Model 351 twin-body aircraft is the largest aircraft in history ...

    Which is shorter than "Mriya" by 11m, and has a maximum take-off weight of 50 tons less, and the payload can carry less by 20 tons.
    If take off.
    But still, "the largest in the world."
    And which so far only "rolled out". And Mriya has been flying for 30 years. How can you compare?
    It may be worth brandishing all kinds of epithets after this device has at least taken off the ground.
    1. +1
      1 June 2017 09: 20
      With the largest wingspan in all. An-225 and so was on the second. In second place is now the wooden "Spruce Goose".
  9. 0
    1 June 2017 09: 03
    SpaceX Falcon 9 Air and Orbital ATK Pegasus II have been successively replaced


    What is the reason for divination anyone in the know?
  10. +2
    1 June 2017 09: 10
    My little experience in aviation makes me think that the first flight of this miracle can end tragically ... There are few photos, if you look, you get the impression from them that this is not a flight instance. In general, the idea is not new: Lightning-1000 "Hercules" NGO Lightning

    and Tupolev developments for air shuttle launch

    1. +1
      1 June 2017 09: 46
      Quote: Engineer
      My little experience in aviation makes me think that the first flight of this miracle could end tragically ...

      ... But he, I hope, includes an acquaintance with the Global Flyer, for example? This is if from recent. If the experience is a little wider than I fear, then I dare to assume that you know about He.111Z.
      It seems that there were earlier successful developments.
      1. +2
        1 June 2017 11: 04
        don't be afraid
        1. +2
          1 June 2017 11: 09
          Quote: Engineer
          don't be afraid

          Well, then do not run ahead of the Grand, shouting stupidity at him.
          1. +11
            1 June 2017 11: 25
            I didn’t want to argue in vain, but apparently you have nothing to do, since you are bullying. Good. What was your stupidest example with Global Flyer? You do not understand the difference in purpose or what? If Ruslan could only lift himself into the air, then no one would need him. And your example is just from this opera. And He.111Z what have you led to the examples? Where is his payload located? Where are his engines located? Have you considered a supported beam at least once? Not visible. And what do you know about the operation of these aircraft? Was she a scholar or not? How many hours have flown? Any comments on strength? The iron also flies, but badly and not far. And what other “successful” single examples can you give? So, only you are shouting nonsense here, because you don’t understand anything in aviation or in sopromat. Bye.
            1. The comment was deleted.
  11. +1
    1 June 2017 09: 11
    Quote: AlexVas44
    Such an operation with engines is not clear. No new? Expensive? ... or?

    For the first flights (test), these engines will come off with not fully developed resource ..

    Quote: stoker
    ... The Stratolaunch Model 351 twin-body aircraft is the largest aircraft in history ...

    Which is shorter than "Mriya" by 11m, and has a maximum take-off weight of 50 tons less, and the payload can carry less by 20 tons.
    If take off.
    But still, "the largest in the world."
    And which so far only "rolled out". And Mriya has been flying for 30 years. How can you compare?
    It may be worth brandishing all kinds of epithets after this device has at least taken off the ground.

    In this case, they are right. It is the largest since the wingspan is greater than that of the "Mriya". Well, the fact that I haven’t flown yet is a remedy. Will fly.
    As for the Mriya, yes, 29 years have passed since the first take-off. True, for 7 years the plane stood on the ground with the engines removed. Well. So the record of "the largest aircraft" lasted for "Mriya" for almost 30 years
    1. +5
      1 June 2017 10: 24
      Quote: Old26

      ... in this case, they are right ...

      In this case, you are simply incompetent.
      Firstly, if you take the trouble to look at the list of the ten largest civilian aircraft in the world, make sure that the wingspan does not appear as a criterion even once.
      Secondly, the fuselage length and lifting capacity are precisely the key parameters.
      They determine the volume and weight of the cargo carried. Just what aircraft are built for.
      In the meantime, we see a certain building with the largest, for today, the scope of what the aircraft called wings.

      ... Well, the fact that I haven’t flown yet is a remedy. Will fly ...

      This is apparently because he is American. Of course, this is enough for you as a specialist.
      ... As for the Mriya, yes, 29 years have passed since the first take-off ...
      ... Well. So the record of the "largest aircraft" lasted for "Mriya" for almost 30 years ...

      What do you have with logic?
      So the Soviet “Mriya” became a “plane” from the moment of its first take-off, and the “American” - from the moment when it was rolled out of the hangar in a crowd?
      Well, well, the deflection is counted.
      1. 0
        1 June 2017 10: 39
        Quote: stoker
        fuselage length and carrying capacity are precisely the key parameters.
        They determine the volume and weight of the cargo carried.

        Strictly speaking, the weight of the transported cargo (and, other things being equal, its size) is determined, precisely, by the wing characteristics.
        And by what parameter to consider "the greatest", this is a philosophical question, somewhere advertising.
        An example from a parallel industry: no one argues that Gagarin was in orbit, that he was the first astronaut and so on. But, strictly speaking, the flight was not orbital - the revolution remained not closed and the Titov was the first to perform the orbital flight.
        So in this case: the issue of an agreement on terms.
  12. +5
    1 June 2017 09: 15
    Quote: Wedmak
    weight of suspended payload - 230 tons.

    Are you not enough?

    On paper, yes, but in real life, how? 230 t on the jumper, + weight and multidirectional vibrations of 2 nacelles, + torsion will be very decent due to different flux density .. Well, this design does not cause confidence.
    1. +1
      1 June 2017 10: 22
      Well, this design does not cause confidence.

      Did you fly on airplanes? Do you even know that from the air flow at a speed of 800-900 km / h and a temperature of -50 degrees you are essentially separated by 3 mm of metal and a couple of centimeters of soft thermal insulation?
      1. +1
        1 June 2017 10: 28
        Quote: Wedmak
        3 mm metal

        An order of magnitude less. If we are talking about the fuselage.
  13. The comment was deleted.
  14. +1
    1 June 2017 09: 18
    Quote: AlexVas44
    Such an operation with engines is not clear. No new? Expensive? ... or?

    they are scheduled for several years in advance.
  15. +1
    1 June 2017 09: 19
    There was a lot of news about him about 5 years ago, and then silence. I thought that he had been pushed .... but the matter was brought to an end ...
  16. +3
    1 June 2017 09: 57
    with what fright he is "The largest aircraft in history" ??? the plane with the largest wingspan - maybe
  17. +3
    1 June 2017 09: 58
    Quote: Choi
    SpaceX Falcon 9 Air and Orbital ATK Pegasus II have been successively replaced

    What is the reason for divination anyone in the know?

    Everything is very simple here. At the time the TTZ was issued to the carrier, the studies of the two above-mentioned companies were most suitable. And if Pegasus 2 was already under development then Falcon-9 Air just planned. The company involved in the development of "Pegasus-2" began "confusion and reels". Originally Pegasus 2 It was planned with the first two steps on solid fuel, and the third was supposed to be on cryogenic fuel. After some time, the concept changed and a decision was made instead of the third cryogenic stage to make solid fuel. Again the question arose. Make one third solid fuel or make the carrier four-stage. All this "confusion and vacillations" led to the fact that the project was temporarily postponed. This happened EMNIP in 2014. The work was renewed again by kmk in the year 2015-2016. As a result, despite a two-year delay, the plane was rolled out, and the rocket was not ready yet.

    About the same thing happened with the Falcon
    At the time of the start of work on the aircraft, the campaign had a rocket in operation Falcon-9v1.0. But at the first stage she had engines Marilyn 1s. A rocket was to be used for the plane Falcon-9-Air (Falcon-9-Air). But not with engines anymore Marilyn 1Cbut with engines Marilyn-1D. In addition, I would have had to completely re-arrange the rocket, changing at the first stage 9 engines 1C to 4 engines 1D. And on 90 tons to reduce starting weight, for the model Falcon-9 v1.0 it was equal 318 tons.

    In short, considering, we came to the conclusion that "the game is not worth the candle". Reinventing a rocket is very expensive. In fact, you have to create a new one, without a guarantee that it will pay off in the near future. Moreover, at that time Falcon-9 v1.1 was approaching, capable of throwing 10,45 tons into low orbit instead of 6,1 for an air launch rocket and 8,159 instead of 2,35 for a geosynchronous orbit
    In short, now there is a situation that there are no new ones, but you can use only the old Pegasus missile. True, there is still time until the year 20 to make a rocket more powerful than a Pegasus. It is possible to bring the mind to the same "Pegasus-2"
  18. +1
    1 June 2017 10: 40
    Here on the first flight, it’s crashed, and we'll see.
  19. +2
    1 June 2017 10: 52
    Quote: stoker
    Firstly, if you take the trouble to look at the list of the ten largest civilian aircraft in the world, make sure that the wingspan does not appear as a criterion even once.
    Secondly, the fuselage length and lifting capacity are precisely the key parameters.

    So what? Somewhere the criteria are written that BIG airplane criterion is FUSELAGE LENGTHAnd not WINGSPAN? The biggest load is THIS WHEN THE SPEECH IS ABOUT THE MOST LOADING. And in general, all these parameters are most often, sorry, far-fetched. The fuselage is longer - the largest, the wingspan is longer than the others - the largest. This is all purely conversational, not real. The only criterion that can be discussed is payload. there you can say for sure. Yes, plane X is more lifting than plane Y. Everything else is just a measure.

    Quote: stoker
    This is apparently because he is American. Of course, this is enough for you as a specialist.

    I am not an expert, like some specialists here in everything. But I don’t even put, as many here everything American is below the baseboard, in order to show off your patriotism. I am aware that the Americans are not so stupid and clumsy as we always try to put them out. And their aircraft industry was not born yesterday. Since they made such an aircraft, it means they have calculations under this decision. They do not apply to those. who is ready to throw tens of millions on a toy that is not confirmed by calculations. Therefore, I say that this is a matter of time. Will fly.

    Quote: stoker
    What do you have with logic?
    So the Soviet “Mriya” became a “plane” from the moment of its first take-off, and the “American” - from the moment when it was rolled out of the hangar in a crowd?

    Here I agree with you. My phrase was not designed exactly by writing lasted. But for the most part, the test flight will be in the second half of the year, so the MRII record is really will last about 30 years. (Now this record is 29 years old)
  20. +2
    1 June 2017 11: 46
    and this cat-dog will not fall apart in half under load? for the wing between the fuselages is long and one in the tail is not connected additional!
    1. +1
      1 June 2017 11: 59
      Quote: HMR333
      and this cat-dog will not fall apart in half under load? for the wing between the fuselages is long

      You, when push-ups, do not break into the lower back region? But, after all, in relative terms the “span” is even greater. And there is still such entertainment, which girls like very much when they push up with them sitting on their backs ...
      :)
      1. 0
        1 June 2017 18: 29
        Quote: Avis
        You, when push-ups, do not break into the lower back region?

        And if the lumbar is a two-pound weight? wink
        1. The comment was deleted.
  21. +2
    1 June 2017 12: 14
    Quote: article
    ..which retains an advantage in terms of length (84 m) and maximum take-off weight (640 tons) ...


    Compare “Mriya” and this aircraft only in size does not make sense: the developers of the Stratolaunch Model 351 had other priorities.
    1. The comment was deleted.
      1. 0
        1 June 2017 12: 52
        This is the profession of marketers.

        ...

        We will follow what comes out of the project in practice (and from this aircraft in particular).
        This
        1. 0
          1 June 2017 13: 01
          Quote: Simple
          This is the profession of marketers.
          ...

          By itself.
          We will follow what comes out of the project in practice (and from this aircraft in particular).

          Everything will be fine with them. “Pegasus” has already set the stage; now it’s not completely starting from scratch.
          1. 0
            1 June 2017 13: 09
            This is not your blog?

            http://lozga.livejournal.com/73437.html
            1. +1
              1 June 2017 13: 39
              Quote: Simple
              This is not your blog?
              http://lozga.livejournal.com/73437.html

              No. I have an LJ account, but I don’t write anything myself. Yes, and rarely comment.
  22. +1
    1 June 2017 13: 59
    Flyers !!!!! And where will the FAC sit here and how to plant it and where will it be ?????
    1. +1
      1 June 2017 14: 01
      Quote: oleole97
      Flyers !!!!! And where will the FAC sit here and how to plant it and where will it be ?????

      Can you see the glazing of the cabs in the photo?
      Plant - You Won't Believe It! - on the runway.
      1. 0
        1 June 2017 14: 14
        in which case, in which? and where to get such a runway?
        1. Hog
          +2
          1 June 2017 14: 26
          1) In the right cockpit, in the left launchers.
          2) Yes, at least for the one that on AB Edwards there is enough length of almost 12km.
        2. +1
          1 June 2017 14: 27
          Quote: oleole97
          in which case, in which? and where to get such a runway?

          And what's the difference in what? Well, let's say, in the left. Although, there are cases when the pilot was sitting in the right "fuselage".

          What's wrong with the runway? Width? If the drawings and schemes from free access are correct, then the track is 30 ... 35m. The width of modern runways is 50m or more, especially at all kinds of air bases. For example, the track of the external struts of the B-52 is about 40 meters and, of course, they should not roll on the ground. Plus some margin. Well, five meters on each side - for sure.
  23. Hog
    0
    1 June 2017 14: 16
    Interestingly, have you already created a rocket pylon?
  24. 0
    1 June 2017 14: 27
    Quote: Avis
    The length of modern runways at large airports, such as DMD or Heathrow, reaches 4km

    And how does the width of the runway and the wingspan correlate?
    1. 0
      1 June 2017 14: 36
      Quote: 16112014nk
      Quote: Avis
      The length of modern runways at large airports, such as DMD or Heathrow, reaches 4km

      And how does the width of the runway and the wingspan correlate?

      In general, no way. Specify a question.
  25. +2
    1 June 2017 14: 40
    Stratolaunch is a completely disastrous project - with the launch mass of 590 tons (including 230 tons of launch vehicle), they plan to put only 4430 kg of payload or 0,75 percent into orbit.

    Bert Rutan (contractor for the development and construction of the carrier aircraft) divorced Paul Allen (project investor) into sickly grandmas laughing

    The Russian-Kazakh Sunkar launch vehicle is driven by methane with a starting weight of 520 tons and a payload mass of 17 tons (3,3 percent), which is launched at the DOE with an inclination of 50 degrees.
  26. +2
    1 June 2017 15: 20
    The business case for the project is not very clear.
    Throw 400 kg of cargo into orbit, for 40-80 million dollars, when there is Zenith, the Union, and (partly) the Dnieper ??
    Well, let's say the launch of the Pegasus with the L-1011 was actually sponsored by the state, but is Stratolaunch Systems positioned as commercial?
    HOW are they going to compete with the market at such ratios of start-up cost to PN?
    Is it really only due to the greater flexibility of the place and time of launch (deficit of seats at stationary spaceports)?
    Moreover, commercial satellites are mainly developed with the requirement to withstand only axial overloads, and even horizontal assembly (when the satellite lies "on its side") is unacceptable for them?
    1. 0
      1 June 2017 16: 21
      Quote: Young_Communist
      The business case for the project is not very clear.
      Throw 400 kg of cargo into orbit, for 40-80 million dollars, when there is Zenith, the Union, and (partly) the Dnieper ??

      And who said that 400kg? The Soyuz, weighing 300 tons, starting from "zero altitude-zero speed", brings 7 tons into low orbit. Here, the launch vehicle has a launch mass of 230 tons, having at the time of launch the entire troposphere behind and 6% of the First Cosmic (at the equator). Do you really believe that it will output cargo 17 times smaller?
  27. +1
    1 June 2017 15: 50
    Interesting news. And it was interesting to read the comments ..)
  28. 0
    1 June 2017 18: 35
    Well, we profukat "air start" crying Now we are going to overtake to catch up. AMEN fool
  29. +1
    1 June 2017 18: 41
    I would be pleasantly surprised if this crap soars and is struck if it sits down.
    1. The comment was deleted.
      1. 0
        1 June 2017 22: 22
        You, dear, can only slander! And this cannot fly by nature! Even a cursory glance gives the complete scribe of this design!
        1. The comment was deleted.
  30. 0
    1 June 2017 21: 37
    We are waiting for the test
  31. +1
    2 June 2017 20: 29
    "We are pleased to announce that the presentation of the Stratolaunch aircraft will be an important step towards creating a convenient, reliable and familiar way of delivering cargo to a low near-earth orbit," said Jean Floyd, the company's general director. and flight tests. "
    http://www.space.com/37046-stratolaunch-worlds-la
    rgest-airplane-first-rollout.html and Google for help
  32. +1
    2 June 2017 23: 56
    Russia is developing a two-body aircraft


    https://topwar.ru/106423-v-rossii-razrabatyvaetsy
    a-dvuhfyuzelyazhnyy-samolet.html
    1. 0
      3 June 2017 15: 18
      Quote: DOCTOR ZLO
      Russia is developing a two-body aircraft


      Transport carriers (military) are developed for a very specific cargo range. In other words, for this type of aircraft (which is on the video you posted), there may be cargo that cannot be transported for example by this transporter:

      1. 0
        3 June 2017 15: 35
        Simple Today, 15: 18 ↑ New
        Transport carriers (military) are developed for a very specific cargo range.

        Why are you telling me this, I knew it without you ...
  33. The comment was deleted.
  34. 0
    22 September 2017 11: 44
    empty idea
    1. no payload
    canceled Pegasus-2 and so on
    2. specially prepared satellites (another direction of overloads acting on the payload)
    3. use for other purposes is necessary for payback application
    (at least once every 2 weeks).
    Stratolaunch was created for a large rocket (more than 200 tons) - 2 different rockets were developed under full load
    Space X Falcon 9 Air - abandoned development focusing on the Falcon family
    "Development ceased in 4Q2012 as SpaceX and Stratolaunch" amicably agreed to end [their] contractual relationship because the [Stratolaunch] launch vehicle design [had] departed significantly from the Falcon derivative vehicle envisioned by SpaceX and does not fit well with [SpaceX's] long -term strategic business model. "
    pegas -2 office did not pull. Moreover, in the process they turned the wrong way - they developed a solid-fuel rocket (and this is a small impulse),
    although just for an air launch it is more profitable to make a rocket with a high momentum - either hydrogen or methane and immediately with a high-altitude nozzle.
    Therefore, being without rockets management
    arranged a clownish senile excuse
    - they say we will start immediately 3 pegas -1 !!!
    it’s impossible to come up with more stupidity - even if there is a task to launch 3 Pegasus in a short period of time
    it’s better easier it’s more reliable to make 3 flights,
    not to mention the fact that a carrier with a carrying capacity of 30 tons is enough for this - 8 times less !!
    So, I’m sure that in a year or so they’ll launch a little pegasik for PR, and that's it and die