Deceptive maneuver: the largest aircraft in the world can be the US secret weapon

58
From the battlefield - into space

Everyone probably heard that the American company Scaled Composites creates the largest (with some reservations) in stories the aircraft has two fuselage and serves as a platform for launching space rockets. Although the offspring of Scaled Composites is much inferior to the “Mrie” in terms of mass and length, the perspective aircraft is much larger in wing span: 117 meters versus 88. One of the founders of the company was Paul Allen, who died last year, best known for being one of the co-founders of Microsoft. Actually, the concept of the Stratolaunch Model 351 has been known for a long time: it is called the “air start”. In this case, the launch of the rocket produced in the sky. Russian developments in this direction were primarily associated with the MAKS system. And in its time, Ukraine tried to use the An-225 for the Svityaz and Lybid aerospace systems. None of the above could be realized.





Stratolaunch Model 351 features:

Length: 73 m
Wingspan: 117,3 m
Height: 4,69 m
Empty weight: 226,596 kg
Normal take-off weight: 340,194 kg
Maximum takeoff weight: 589,670 kg
External payload: 250,000 kg
Engine six x Pratt & Whitney PW4056 252,4 kN thrust each

It is important to note that the Scaled Composites project is not in place: on the eve of the first flight, the plane has already completed high-speed runs along the runway. Prior to that, it was dispersed to medium, and even earlier - low speed. That is, the company’s plans are serious and, apparently, they will not abandon the project.

Mysterious "vundervaffe"

The aircraft is positioned as a tool for civilian rocket production. Meanwhile, the Quartz recently published the Paul Allen built the world's biggest plane. Does anyone need it? ”Drew attention to some inconsistencies. A decade ago, the world rocket science was in crisis. However, now everything has changed and it's not just the SpaceX rocket Falcon 9 - the world leader in the number of space launches. In addition to Mask, Blue Origin, Virgin Galactic, United Launch Alliance, and Northrop Grumman have recently announced themselves. A newcomer of the market represented by the New Zealand private company Rocket Lab with its light and very cheap rocket “Electron”, which, by the way, has already completed several successful starts, can also “shoot”.



That is, most likely, there is simply no place for the new space launch operator in the world: a real struggle is going on for the market and the leaders, in general, have long been known. In addition, the very concept of air launch has significant drawbacks.

- At an altitude of more than 30 km, a decrease in air density drastically reduces the aerodynamic advantages of an aircraft wing;
- High requirements for the reliability of the payload (satellites are often developed with the requirement to withstand only axial overloads);
- Very high requirements for media engines, which should provide him with high speed at high altitude;
- Technological risks associated with the overall complexity of the concept;
- The risk of losing expensive aircraft and crew members.

In this regard, we can recall the company Virgin Group, which also uses the concept of air start. But do not forget that the goals of Richard Branson have long been known: suborbital tourism. Roughly speaking, his device has little in common with the Stratolaunch Model 351, although the launch method is the same.



According to Quartz, Stratolaunch Systems still has an advantage: if the plane is brought to mind, it will be able to put cargo into orbit, even if the weather is bad and will not allow the launch of a conventional rocket. Let us examine this issue in more detail. Postponement for commercial customers plays almost no role. At the same time, this problem can become critical if we are talking about military spacecraft. As proof of its hypothesis, the publication claims that US Vice President Mike Pence and US Air Force Secretary Heather Wilson recently visited the facilities of Stratolaunch Systems. At the same time, the company failed to answer Quartz’s question about the number of employees: only about fifty employees have a description on LinkedIn, a popular service for business connections. Why such secrecy for a civil company is not clear. By the way, SpaceX can provide data on 7000 employees, and Blue Origin - 1500. That is, in simple terms, about all (or almost all) of those who work there at all.

Perhaps the true goals of Stratolaunch Systems will become clearer if we consider the intended payload. Last summer, the company talked about which devices it wants to output using its aircraft. One of the declared - Medium Launch Vehicle (MLV) - has a tonnage of 3,5 tons and will be able to raise the load on the height to 400 km. There is also the MLV Heavy: in principle, the same thing, only with a greater carrying capacity. Most of all, the media was interested in the spaceplane, similar to the mysterious Boeing X-37 (experts are still arguing why the Americans needed this orbital plane). The problem is that Stratolaunch recently refused to develop its own missiles. Instead, the company wants to use the Pegasus XL launch vehicle developed by Orbital ATK. Recall, "Pegasus" is a multifunctional rocket that can be launched normally or from a carrier aircraft, as Stratolaunch Systems wants. The mass of the payload output to low Earth orbit by the carrier can reach 443 kg. In modern classification, it is a light launch vehicle. Behind Pegasus XL are many NASA missions. In theory, the rocket can also be used for some military launches, although its capabilities, of course, have quite obvious limitations.



Instead of a conclusion

In fact, in this matter it is very difficult to support one or another point of view. In favor of the "conspiracy theory" says that in America (and in other countries too) any military special operation may well be disguised as a peaceful project, while not sparing funds for the enemy's disinformation. Recently, former oceanographer Robert Ballard, who became famous after the discovery of the Titanic, said that the search for the legendary steamer was in fact a secret mission to search for sunken American submarines.

Projects of large aircraft carrier spacecraft in the history of the United States were also. For example, at one time they created the Conroy Virtus — a two-body transport aircraft for transporting the Space Shuttle shuttle. As it is easy to see, such a large and expensive project was part of an even larger program aimed at maintaining US superiority in the field of space exploration, which was an important component of the geopolitical game. Therefore, maybe the Stratolaunch Model 351 really doesn’t create “just like that.” Most likely, soon we will know everything ourselves.
Our news channels

Subscribe and stay up to date with the latest news and the most important events of the day.

58 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. +22
    9 February 2019 06: 24
    And what exactly is the deception when creating such a technique ??? Cheating in the sense that they have it in the "IRON", but we do not have .... well, except for the next PLANS ??? It will be clear to a non-clinical idiot that this is a dual-use device and will solve the issues of the current time period, the main thing is to launch an FAQ from it into the blue sky. Obviously an interesting car with a wide range of special features - WHAT Nafig (Fog, this turn of writing is a specialist for you) CONSPIRACY THEORY ??? And we have another ELEPHANT project. Is there anyone who remembers how to rename AEROFLOT to an elephant and show a video on TV ???
    Here are the Chinese gathered I. Mask to bribe themselves, swindler and embezzler wassat Musk, crush them drinks
    1. +1
      14 February 2019 11: 58
      Especially don’t be so happy, the Valkyrie was also advanced, like the Blackbird, but where are they?
      1. 0
        16 February 2019 06: 28
        Igor123 - and no one is happy. My statement is CONSTANT FACT. They HAVE, and we have a lot of projectors in management and thieves in the bottom line, which led to stagnation and degradation of the aerospace industry. I’ll really be glad when all this high-ranking thieves disappear from the golden heritage of the USSR, while unambiguously answering for all that shit that I managed to spoil. Their
        "Valkyrie" and "Blackbird" have transformed into the SIXTH STAGE on the scale of development of society, their rovers and automatic stations and orbital telescopes have been inspecting them for decades and fly into near and deep space. We use products of any level produced by IMI every day. Then you can spend hours listing their "shortcomings" created for the general use of everyone and everything ... but in scrap mnu.
  2. +10
    9 February 2019 06: 59
    In my personal opinion, after the death of Paul Allen, this project will die a quiet death. Perhaps the current management of the company is simply looking for someone to shave off what is left and the Pentagon examined whether the game is worth the candle.
    1. +1
      15 February 2019 19: 59
      Your thought seems most real!
      This stratovunderwaffle has such a bunch of operational limitations that the number of places suitable for its take-off and landing turn it into a real monument to itself. Subject to application not on the declared topic.
      This is exactly a flying spaceport - with all the ensuing consequences.
  3. +1
    9 February 2019 07: 03
    In theory, probably everything until the opposite is proved. So, the truth in the arguments of the author takes place!
  4. +5
    9 February 2019 07: 20
    1 - At an altitude of more than 30 km, a decrease in air density dramatically reduces the aerodynamic advantages of an airplane wing;

    2 - High requirements for the reliability of the payload (satellites often develop with the requirement to withstand only axial overloads);
    3 - Very high requirements for carrier engines, which should provide it with high speed at high altitude;
    4 - Technological risks associated with the overall complexity of the concept;
    5 - Risk of loss of an expensive aircraft and crew.
    1 - So if it were not critical - just a tower would be built. They say they built it, but something didn’t work out there ...
    2 - Not reliability, but strength. Under such a launch, if it is cheaper, they will build taking into account the peculiarities and the matter is in the hat.
    3 - They should just work in conditions of wild pressure difference.
    4 - The concept is perhaps even simpler: aviation is used intensively, and the carrier is just another plane, albeit unique. The problem in the series: the Space Shuttle got burned, in particular, on the fact that there should have been 10 launches more. It is necessary that such aircraft be built constantly, and for this there must be constant operation.
    5 - Risks are probability and professionalism.

    Recently, former oceanographer Robert Ballard, who became famous after the discovery of the Titanic, said that the search for the legendary steamer was in fact a secret mission to search for sunken American submarines.
    On a small patch?
    1. 0
      9 February 2019 19: 03
      Shuttles burned out primarily due to the fact that they did not use heat-resistant titanium alloys in the design, but replaced them with aluminum - they stupidly greedy.
      1. -2
        9 February 2019 22: 33
        Quote: Vadim237
        the construction did not use heat-resistant titanium alloys, but replaced them with aluminum - stupidly greedy.
        The wildest nonsense! The titanium glider would fall apart the first time, and would burn out the second. And the mass increased one and a half times.
        Unions are aluminum and do not burn out. The Federation is generally mainly carbon fiber.
        The shuttle did not develop due to the small number of launches and the lack of the need to update the fleet, which would lead to a significant improvement in design and concept.
        1. +1
          10 February 2019 19: 05
          You’re not a saboteur in materials science at all - our Avangard has a nickel-titanium case withstands 2000 degrees. And in terms of strength to titanium - steel is not a rival.
          1. 0
            10 February 2019 22: 50
            Quote: Vadim237
            You’re not a saboteur in materials science at all - our Avangard has a nickel-titanium case withstands 2000 degrees.
            I AM? Well ... it’s not so much meat that I know that when heated above the crystallization temperature, any metal loses its strength. Nitinol, too. Even tungsten can’t stand it.
            The melting point of titanium is 1700С, alloys will not be much higher.
            ALL descent vehicles, like hypersonic missiles, are covered by heat shields.
            Specifically, Orbiter - has the main thermal protection in black.

            Quote: Vadim237
            And in terms of strength to titanium - steel is not a rival.
            Did you hold titanium in your hands? Titanium alloys are close in strength to low-cost steels and are almost twice as lighter. Alloy steel is stronger.
            But such rubbish in terms of parameters - it is worth using only if it is baked.
            1. +1
              11 February 2019 06: 00
              ALL descent vehicles, like hypersonic missiles, are covered by heat shields.
              the fact that the most primitive of solutions is actively applied does not mean that there are no other solutions. For example, you can try to work with the flow conditions in order to reduce the impact on the coating at times.
              1. +2
                11 February 2019 10: 51
                Quote: yehat
                For example, you can try to work with the flow conditions
                I repeat for those in the tank: a heat shield is used for the flow device.
                Quote: yehat
                to significantly reduce the impact on the coating.
                Come on! Coating?
                Those. You do not understand your own words?
                I will explain: the power structure must be protected, otherwise the device will be overloaded. In the case of the warhead is not critical: it has a very dense layout.
            2. 0
              12 February 2019 12: 41
              I kept and even engaged in its processing and welding - the use of tatan was justified for the spacecraft hull, due to external influences - on the heat-shielding coating of space debris and the elements of the spacecraft themselves at launch - the Columbia accident clearly showed this.
              1. +1
                12 February 2019 17: 35
                Quote: Vadim237
                the use of Tatan was justified for the spacecraft hull, in view of external influences - on the heat-shielding coating of space debris and the elements of the spacecraft themselves at launch - the Columbia accident clearly showed this.
                It seems to me that you have little idea of ​​the properties of materials and structural features.
                A titanium sheet with a thickness equal to the orbiter skin will be one and a half times heavier ... or one and a half times thinner ... in any case, it will not protect against anything.
                For a general understanding:
                1 - dynamic heating during braking in the atmosphere - several thousand degrees (this is 2000 + C).
                2 - not a single titanium alloy can withstand more than 1000С - ductility will critically increase (this is in addition to starting to burn at a lower temperature).
                3 - titanium, although a worse heat conductor than aluminum, is still not a heat insulator and will transfer heat to other structures.
                I do not understand why you, when dealing with titanium, do not understand where it makes sense to use this stupid material.
                Only in places where the temperature does not exceed about 600 ° C with active cooling and about 250 ° C without cooling. In any other cases, steel or duralumin is better.
                If you want to compare the use of titanium in aviation (type T-4), then in vain: space speeds в 20-100 times higher.
      2. +1
        9 February 2019 22: 36
        In the Space Shuttle, even in the name itself, the principle is laid - a space taxi. Those. in the project, the emphasis was on payback. If even in a cheap "luminous" version - the project stupidly did not pay off, what would have happened in the expensive titanium version ?!
        Here, by the way, the penguins' eternal disease - commercials, presentations and other marketing Crap they know how to do, but they don’t know how to translate their tales into reality - it always turns out to be expensive and not necessary. Look at the article mentioned Falcon-9. By the way, the same topic as the Shuttle - such as a CHEAP space truck. Now we collect the forehead into an accordion and look at two things. How much CAN in a keg load cargo into orbit Falcon 9, and then we read on launches - how much it actually displays. 10% load. And now we think how a truck that is being driven empty will pay for itself in principle?
        As I said - they know how to shoot commercials. And that’s all ...
        1. 0
          9 February 2019 23: 05
          Quote: Cowbra
          Now we collect the forehead into an accordion and look at two things. How much CAN in a keg load cargo into orbit Falcon 9, and then we read on launches - how much it actually displays.
          Dragons weigh a little more than 10 tons, the declared FT carrying capacity on the NOO is 22 tons without returning the stage, returning the stage eats up 10-30% of the carrying capacity.
          Those. the start of the Dragon with a return is approximately 80% of the carrying capacity of the FT nominal, taking into account the fact that the ISS does not fly 160-200 km, but about 400 km. Well, or the limit for v1.1.
          If you take a closer look, the load, on average, is the same - about 80%. But yes: that’s about half if the stage were irrevocable ...

          Quote: Cowbra
          And now we think how a truck that is being driven empty will pay for itself in principle?
          Here you also need to look like this: in one case, the truck is lucky and destroyed, and in the other, it has expensive maintenance.
          1. -2
            9 February 2019 23: 16
            Even in the Dragon boot option - 50%. Empty.
            Further, the truck is not lucky and it is destroyed, but in fact, in one embodiment, the garbage was thrown out with the garbage bag, in the other - the garbage was thrown out, the bag was picked up, the houses were cleaned - and boast of savings, without concealing the cost of the soap and water spent. In fact, after starting up and landing on the engine of the stage, it is necessary to re-assemble this stage, any engineer will tell you that building FROM ZERO is cheaper than rebuilding an existing one - always. I’m silent about the fact that it’s stupidly irrational to spend a lot of fuel just to return to the ground an actually FUEL TANK !!!
            1. 0
              10 February 2019 19: 11
              Multiple landing and take-off have already been technically incorporated into this rocket - neither need to be disassembled there, there are diagnostic tools for this - in-place control.
              1. +1
                10 February 2019 19: 18
                In this case, reliability - like a household vacuum cleaner. CIP after space literally overloads is something.
        2. 0
          10 February 2019 19: 08
          It could pay off - but there was no load for it, and even the accident due to the O-ring of the turbojet engine accelerator made its sad corrections for launches.
          1. +1
            10 February 2019 19: 19
            He could pay off, but what for nobody needed, in other words. And how then could he pay off if it was ANYWHERE to pay off ?!
            1. +1
              13 February 2019 14: 42
              I am far from outer space, I only read and was silent above the poet. And that's what is interesting, two dudes begin to argue about metals loading temperature and pressure, give numbers, etc. etc. (They clearly think) And then Comrade Cowbra appears and, in plain language, with examples of packages of soap and trucks, will lose both of them)) I bravoly applaud while standing
        3. 0
          11 February 2019 06: 02
          Quote: Cowbra
          As I said - they know how to shoot commercials. And that’s all ...

          With the moon, a ride. Even a satellite was launched to simulate a signal exchange
    2. +1
      9 February 2019 22: 43
      Quote: Simargl
      On a small patch?

      Everything was a little more complicated there. The expedition was fully funded for him. In exchange, he pledged to joke before the Titanic on "Scorpion" and "Thresher". Which, accordingly, did
      Incidentally, he himself admitted to working for the US Navy
      1. -1
        9 February 2019 23: 11
        Quote: Spade
        he pledged to joke before the Titanic "Scorpion" and "Thresher".
        Well, this is not a search for "Scorpion" and "Thresher" under the guise of a search for the Titanic - this is condition to allocate money in search of the Titanic.
        1. 0
          9 February 2019 23: 32
          Quote: Simargl
          Well, this is not a search for "Scorpion" and "Thresher" under the guise of finding the Titanic

          In fact, yes. For all the uninitiated, this was the continuation of the search for the Titanic after the change of ship.
  5. +2
    9 February 2019 07: 28
    Blue Origin, Virgin Galactic, United Launch Alliance and Northrop Grumman have recently made a big statement. A newcomer to the market in the person of the New Zealand private company Rocket Lab with its light and very cheap rocket Electron, which, by the way, has already completed several successful starts, can also “shoot”.
    .... Will there be a place in this market for Russia ...
  6. +3
    9 February 2019 08: 33
    In favor of the "conspiracy theory" is the fact that in America (and in other countries too), any military special operation may well be disguised as a peace project, while not sparing funds for disinformation of the enemy.
    Raise the Soviet K-129, as an example, more clearly Titanic.
  7. +2
    9 February 2019 08: 36
    judging by the pictures, the wing, of the order of 5-6m in the chord. Will it be able to withstand 250t payload, plus longitudinal bends of 70-meter 100-ton fuselages
    1. +2
      9 February 2019 14: 12
      Will it be able to withstand 250t ... I think that it can, tea live and work in a techno-warehouse with elements of the 6th level and the use of fiber based on carbon nanotubes (this is an example) for sculpting this product is a completely solvable task. AND STRONG AND FLEXIBLE AND EASY ... well, etc. I really want something to have and it would be possible, you look and respect would increase.
      1. 0
        9 February 2019 15: 43
        then you still have to understand why - do not move the tail wings from below to the crossbar connecting the tops of the keels. It would be both more reliable constructively and more convenient in terms of placing the load suspended from below.
        1. +3
          10 February 2019 06: 27
          prodi - regarding the external contours of the created media + launch platform ... I can say one thing for sure that IT was not created by a human designer. The engineering group creates the TASK AND THE SPECIFICATION OF THE NODES OF THE FUTURE PRODUCT with a complete list of the stuffing of which it (the product) will consist ... Then ALL THIS is fed to the server complex with specific software ... and here MAGIC !!! In the created VIRTUAL electronic nodes, you can walk, and watch, and experiment, increase or decrease the set parameters and whatever else you like ... how it will work in future physical preparations .... WITH FULL ACCOUNT OF REAL PHYSICAL- CHEMICAL PARAMETERS. So already designed cars and not cars, taking into account all modern trends and achievements. I trust the SMART IRON much more than the statements (chatter) of Rogozin and the like wassat drinks
          1. +1
            10 February 2019 08: 07
            the logic in your words is definitely there, and it can be very convenient, but where is the mind in this particular decision?
            1. +2
              10 February 2019 08: 28
              prodi - in order to be able to fully use such technological solutions created to help designers ... the latter, well, certainly cannot do without the presence of minds ... Read how the inventor Tesla, back in those shaggy years, created many of his creations without using pulmans and paper. You will be very surprised, because he simulated the operation of units and assemblies in his head (like fantasizing) - nothing resembles anything from what I described above. Dig into "Boolean Algebra", where a bunch of examples of describing many processes and events using formulas - well, very interesting. If the chela has a mind, then he will use it with pleasure based on the conditions surrounding him ... if he is available wassat At the same time, of course, using all the advantages that the current ACCESSIBLE technological order provides him ... And we have a BL GreF and others like him say that mathematicians are unnecessary in the country - MIRACLES (Moderators, leave my statement unchanged)
              1. +1
                11 February 2019 05: 49
                Sorry, I didn’t understand, but what was invented in Tesla?
                it’s a collection of well-known solutions for a long time, I don’t see anything new there, except perhaps a new look at the functionality of the machine.
                1. +2
                  11 February 2019 06: 41
                  Sergey ... I wrote about the inventor Nikola Tesla and about one of his abilities to create the virtual models he designed in his brain: fellow (tesla, this is not only Ilon Mask and his line of cars of the same name ... well, etc.) : There are educational films, literature, infa relevant. Seeker let him find drinks See how modern design engineers work in Germany, for example, when creating their creations ... I would also like to work so much. "3D assembly modeling of structurally complex assemblies" ... only this is no longer on the screen, but you are physically inside the projected assembly (machine), the model of which is projected around you by the appropriate equipment - AMAZING OPPORTUNITIES FOR BRAIN APPLICATION ... if they are in availability. And after all, the hour has become fashionable and relevant to replace brains with dough drinks
                  1. 0
                    13 February 2019 14: 49
                    Why are you so smart? (sorry YOU) what kind of education? (I don't want to pin up, I'm really pleasantly surprised by your knowledge and the way of presenting information (a little text "relatively" is a lot of sense))
                    1. +1
                      13 February 2019 15: 39
                      Hello hello ... I am an engineer from the USSR, a school threesome, a programmer and a system administrator for life. Easy on you drinks There are many of us from the USSR, although we often live in different countries fellow
    2. 0
      11 February 2019 05: 53
      modern composites are able to turn any hand-made solution into a really working something
      in comparison with duralumin several times you can change the resistance to some physical parameters
      for example, structural rigidity using graphite materials and spatial engineering of the material can be raised every 50 times. Imagine what game can be done with this.
  8. +6
    9 February 2019 09: 19
    I like the "glider" scheme ... When there were reports about the development of the "Petrel" with a nuclear power plant, ideas began to appear as to how "more" the "apparatus" could be used ... for example, the creation of "long-playing" air platforms: AWACS, repeater, anti-submarine "seeker" ... etc. So, the "glider" described in the article is one of the "main candidates" for the air platform schemes ...
  9. +2
    9 February 2019 10: 38
    Our world is built on the principle of double-digit dialectics. Even a samovar can come up with a military application.
  10. -2
    9 February 2019 10: 56
    This plane would be called "Siamese Twin".
    Siamese twins in life is a mistake of nature, not its development.
  11. +1
    9 February 2019 12: 41
    Conspiracy? This is a common practice in the United States. The US administration cannot interfere in private business affairs or develop technologies. Except: if not in the interests of the security of their state. If nobody threatens their state, then the threat must be created. There is one more exception: the purely prestigious moon landing project. Technology is the foundation of US “exclusivity”, what makes the US dominant. If you want to beat the USA, create advanced technologies. But this is not enough either. We also need to be able to force everyone to use these technologies, to prohibit alternative technologies. A state with a population of less than 300 million. uncompetitive due to the small volume of the market. It is unprofitable to produce. No production - no technology needed. There is no need for technology - no need to educate the population, science.
    1. +1
      9 February 2019 19: 13
      Don't tell me! It is simply not necessary for every enterprise to try to be the navel of the earth. What is the point of puffing up and tearing your ass when you brew beer in St. Petersburg and try to cram it into every stall in Vladivostok? And the purchase of breweries begins closer to the Urals, beyond the Urals. As a result, there are no original beers left that were before the purchase. Then marketing trash begins with the creation of a "new beer", local suppliers of raw materials are bent. This is an example. This is how the breweries of the Kaliningrad region perished. And there is also Miratorg in the same place ...
  12. +3
    9 February 2019 20: 42
    Common "dual" media use. For both commercial and military cargo.
    Conventional rockets have the same thing. It is clear that the creator of such an aircraft wants to pay
    R&D costs. So he invites all potential customers.
    1. 0
      11 February 2019 05: 47
      The only thing that this "creator" will achieve is that in hell for the designers they have already put his personal frying pan on fire.
  13. -2
    9 February 2019 21: 01
    GOD loves the trinity! Therefore, an even larger plane begs in the middle part, and unmanned booster blocks detachable at an altitude of 30-35 km should be put on the sides, but the wings remain in the middle part, passing to wide flapping movements. Well, the tail end is completely disheartening and questions about the qualifications of the grief of designers, devoid of the flight of thoughts.
    1. 0
      10 February 2019 19: 13
      Have you heard anything about aerodynamics?
      1. 0
        11 February 2019 06: 04
        Quote: Vadim237
        Have you heard anything about aerodynamics?

        the first letter looks familiar laughing
  14. 0
    11 February 2019 05: 41
    I am a little familiar with the experience of developing a twin-mastang, twin messer and a number of other projects where it cannot be said that there is only 1 fuselage and the layout of this aircraft surprises me a little
    in my opinion, far from rational in terms of margin of safety, there are questions about weight distribution.
    it seems that the project was entrusted to a very mediocre engineer, who has subordinates with unlimited human and financial resources and a calculation technique for century-old aircraft.

    Yes, even to the amateur show the lightning silhouette of the 1936 model and this aircraft, and he will point to the first, as clearly more rationally designed.
  15. 0
    11 February 2019 07: 11
    If you look at the technology of air launch itself, then the only plus is that the rocket rises from the Earth's surface, that is, the densest part of the atmosphere. But is it so high that it is cost-effective?
    Stratolaunch plans to drop payloads from a height
    Quote: Stratolaunch Systems Official Site
    of 35,000 ft (10,668 m)
    ... For this, both parts of the complex undergo the necessary pre-launch training, in time comparable to the full cycle of the classical rocket scheme. So that it took off-launched-landed-hitched a new one-took off-launched again ... you can even dream, but in reality no one will be engaged in such a rush for the sake of records and not giving a damn about reliability. Time: Soyuz puts the payload into ISS orbit in 10 minutes, while the altitude of 11 km (where the "pregnant" Stratholunch still needs to climb from the airfield), he slips 50 seconds after leaving the launch pad (the speed is already 1600 km / h ). The price of the issue between a disposable first stage (and in the long term it can be reusable) and a monstrous aircraft in order to raise the atmosphere by only 1/10 of the height ... Technically interesting, but you can definitely forget about payback immediately and irrevocably. The salvation of the engine compartment of the first stage looks much more interesting, since it is the engines that are the most valuable thing on the accelerating stages.
  16. 0
    14 February 2019 12: 07
    Quote: Simargl

    I do not understand why you, when dealing with titanium, do not understand where it makes sense to use this stupid material.

    Well, thank God, at least one clever head has appeared, otherwise all of these Lozino-Lozinsky NGOs named after Lavochkin, all sorts of creators of the Mig-25 and Mig-31, the creators of the "blackbird", are just brainless mediocrity. The Russian land is rich in nuggets, but a vivid example sits on a couch, you can immediately see a specialist in all areas of rocket science and metallurgy. It is only a pity that instead of realizing his talent for the benefit of mankind, he philosophizes on a used couch.)
  17. 0
    14 February 2019 12: 34
    Quote: iouris
    Conspiracy? This is a common practice in the United States. The US administration cannot interfere in private business affairs or develop technologies. Except: if not in the interests of the security of their state. If nobody threatens their state, then the threat must be created. There is one more exception: the purely prestigious moon landing project. Technology is the foundation of US “exclusivity”, what makes the US dominant. If you want to beat the USA, create advanced technologies. But this is not enough either. We also need to be able to force everyone to use these technologies, to prohibit alternative technologies. A state with a population of less than 300 million. uncompetitive due to the small volume of the market. It is unprofitable to produce. No production - no technology needed. There is no need for technology - no need to educate the population, science.

    In your words there are smart ALIEN thoughts about 300 million people, but when I hear the word “theirs” the state ...
  18. 0
    14 February 2019 23: 27
    they will devour the whole world soon, then give them 500 yards to the cosmordrome so that the rockets can be launched from it into space — your grandfather trump at Tesla can go crazy and the granddaughter doesn’t sniff himself out, let's see about the technology dumped into the world or hide it from grandchildren will be
  19. 0
    15 February 2019 21: 13
    Quote: Simargl
    alloys will not be much higher.


    Alloys are usually much lower.
  20. 0
    16 February 2019 10: 54
    Born fake can not fly;))) The design, to put it mildly, is very far from optimal !!! However, it is possible that there is another option, already real, but it is not shown to the public.
  21. 0
    17 February 2019 12: 18
    In fact, the United States is a state of private enterprise and fair competition. The US administration does not have the right to intervene in the economy and participate in the development of technologies, unless it is a matter of ensuring the state’s security from outside threats. By definition, all projects in which the US government is involved are military. For the United States, having a military threat is vital. In fact, the administration and the president of the United States personally are the political organs for justifying the existence of an external threat to the United States. Technology is the main resource and product of the US administration.

"Right Sector" (banned in Russia), "Ukrainian Insurgent Army" (UPA) (banned in Russia), ISIS (banned in Russia), "Jabhat Fatah al-Sham" formerly "Jabhat al-Nusra" (banned in Russia) , Taliban (banned in Russia), Al-Qaeda (banned in Russia), Anti-Corruption Foundation (banned in Russia), Navalny Headquarters (banned in Russia), Facebook (banned in Russia), Instagram (banned in Russia), Meta (banned in Russia), Misanthropic Division (banned in Russia), Azov (banned in Russia), Muslim Brotherhood (banned in Russia), Aum Shinrikyo (banned in Russia), AUE (banned in Russia), UNA-UNSO (banned in Russia), Mejlis of the Crimean Tatar People (banned in Russia), Legion “Freedom of Russia” (armed formation, recognized as terrorist in the Russian Federation and banned)

“Non-profit organizations, unregistered public associations or individuals performing the functions of a foreign agent,” as well as media outlets performing the functions of a foreign agent: “Medusa”; "Voice of America"; "Realities"; "Present time"; "Radio Freedom"; Ponomarev; Savitskaya; Markelov; Kamalyagin; Apakhonchich; Makarevich; Dud; Gordon; Zhdanov; Medvedev; Fedorov; "Owl"; "Alliance of Doctors"; "RKK" "Levada Center"; "Memorial"; "Voice"; "Person and law"; "Rain"; "Mediazone"; "Deutsche Welle"; QMS "Caucasian Knot"; "Insider"; "New Newspaper"