The first flight was made by the American giant Stratolaunch Model 351

It became known that the first flight of the largest wing-span aircraft in the world was completed. It's about american aviation Stratolaunch Model 351.

This is a dual-body aircraft company Scaled Composites. Its length is 73 m, and its wingspan is more than 117 m.

The aircraft was designed as a carrier. It is able to lift into the air as a payload mass in 250 tons. The maximum take-off weight of the Stratolaunch Model 351 is over 589 tons.

The aircraft performed the first flight test over the American Mojave Desert. There is also a special hangar, where the giant was rolling out in 2017.

According to the plan, the Stratolaunch Model 351 should be used to launch space-type missiles using the air launch method. The rocket starts at the moment when the carrier aircraft reaches a height of more than 10 km and a certain (sufficient) speed. Designers create a plane, the rocket on which will be located between its two fuselages.

So far there is no data on how much the United States is going to produce such carrier aircraft, as there is no data on the number of crew members of the Stratolaunch Model 351.

As noted, the first flight tests allowed to clarify a number of characteristics of the aircraft launch platform. The creators of the machine will use this data for further work on the Stratolaunch Model 351.

Comments

[Observer2014]

This morning I watched a video in Yandex. Yes, a whopper. There will be an air start for you. Although Mriya is smaller, but! Much more effective than this "frame" Mriya can be used as an ordinary and not an ordinary transport plane. And this miracle Yudo try somewhere else to plant. Well, it’s all to the swing. Everything was knocked down. Wasted. Fie swearing already
Although it’s not a flight video, it’s as much as possible about this plane.

[Thrall]

Quote: Observer2014

Much more effective than this "frame" Mriya can be used as an ordinary and not an ordinary transport aircraft.

The use case immediately came to mind. These are written-off American patrol boats, which cannot all reach the shores of Ukraine due to insufficient seaworthiness.

[Ross xnumx]

The aircraft performed the first flight test over the American Mojave Desert. There is also a special hangar, where the giant was rolling out in 2017.

Let it fly there. We have already got acquainted with the "very best". God forbid it flies somewhere else - count a one-way ticket. It doesn't matter what it will be: a carrier or disperse the air ...

[hrych]

For starters, the very idea of ​​an air launch is flawed. Therefore, neither the USSR nor the USA began to implement it. They had a Shuttle (a great achievement of mankind) that burned only a fuel tank, and even solid fuel boosters were reusable. The USSR developed the modular construction of orbital stations, and the Unions and Protons dragged modules. The shuttle rested in the Bose due to accident rate, and our concept was embodied in the ISS, where the Unions carry astronauts. Even if this freak raises 250 tons, then this does not mean anything. Not the most lifting Union has a starting weight of more than 300 tons. And what can this freak lift up by no more than 20 km, where the wings still provide lift, and the engines are not choked with a small percentage of oxygen. And disperse by no more than one Mach, i.e. Do not cross the boundary of supersonic. For launch vehicles and orbital vehicles, this is nothing. The first stage of the Union is separated at an altitude of 40 km, but the speed is already almost 5 and a half max, i.e. crossed the line of hypersound. Can it replace or compare with the first stage of the Union? And its operation and storage, is it really so cheap and safe pleasure?

[sub307]

There seems to be a reason in your conclusions. However, let's see what the US specialists will "adapt" to this product. The final conclusions are "after the fight".

[hrych]

The final conclusions on the Shuttle were made after several decades of successful operation. Space is such a thing.

[APASUS]

Quote: hrych

Even if this freak raises 250 tons, then this does not mean anything. Not the most lifting Union has a starting weight of more than 300 tons. And what can this freak lift up by no more than 20 km, where the wings still provide lift, and the engines are not choked with a small percentage of oxygen. And disperse by no more than one Mach, i.e. Do not cross the boundary of supersonic. For launch vehicles and orbital vehicles, this is nothing. The first stage of the Union is separated at an altitude of 40 km, but the speed is already almost 5 and a half max, i.e. crossed the line of hypersound. Can it replace or compare with the first stage of the Union? And its operation and storage, is it really so cheap and safe pleasure?

You are missing a couple of points.
This system is reusable and the flight of even such an aircraft is always cheaper than the start of any Union!
In general, the Americans copied precisely our project Lightning. This is, first of all, to the right to an invention about which the Americans have always been talking to us.

[another RUSICH]

Not the fact that it is cheaper. Add infrastructure here, with staff, maintenance, and then missile launches will seem like a fairy tale.

[APASUS]

Quote: another RUSICH

Not the fact that it is cheaper. Add infrastructure here, with staff, maintenance, and then missile launches will seem like a fairy tale.

So plus, just the cost of one Union rocket, a one-time rocket!

How much does it cost to launch a rocket into space? (in million dollars):

Shuttle - 400 - 500;
Union - 35 - 40;
Falcon-9;
FalconHeavy - 90;
Proton - 70;
Dnipro - 18;
Rumble - 44,6;
Arrow - 8,5;
Vega - 59.

Say that the spaceport is more complicated than the airport and probably will not be more expensive?

[voyaka uh]

I’ll clarify. SpaceX Takes 9 Million for Using Falcon-62
For Falcon Heavy - 100 million.

[hrych]

Flight can be cheaper, but do not forget that operation is a broader concept. Including the training and maintenance of pilots, etc. And the problem is in speed, in order to become a satellite you need to achieve the first space speed and this unfortunate increase of 900 km / h, when you need to accelerate to 28 km / h, which can simply be neglected. And by no means, this aircraft is not able to replace the classic first stage, so, to slightly save fuel and no more. If the engines of the first stage (classical, and with this type of scheme already the second) do not return, one damn thing turns out to be nonsense, only the fuel of the stage is saved and no more, and if you take into account that this carrier sooner or later, still screw up, then consider . And our project remained that way, because counted, calculated and wept. And for the Americans, while there is nowhere to go, the budget needs to be mastered, because the bubble has reached the limit, so they still have time to ...

[Blackmokona]

You have one mistake, the USA made an air start. RN Pegasus, she sometimes flies. At the price of kg per orbit, the most expensive LV in the world, the military supports it in case of a nuclear war

[hrych]

Let's not consider launching small satellites into a low orbit up to half a ton weighing something special. Although certainly - it is already a space system. Any of our conversion and utilizable nuclear missiles (which we do) will cope with this, cheaper and better. Moreover, the cost of abandoning this unfortunate cargo is indicated at 40 million dollars. The start of the Union costs the same amount, although it does not launch 443 kilograms, but 7000 kilograms, into the reference orbit, for the same money. Nevertheless, the Stratolaunch Model 351 does not claim to be nanosatellites, but to some kind of competition to the Union, to tons of payload and orbits higher than DOE. And it is the cost of removing Pegasus that somehow confuses, obviously the 351st will be more expensive and how to compete with the same Union if the unfortunate Pegasus has already lost in dollars.

[Andy]

Quote: APASUS

Americans copied exactly our project Lightning.

If they copied something, it was only the idea itself, for the Lightning project itself existed only in the form of drawings and layouts.

[gridasov]

And thank God for doing stupid things.

[Petrix]

Quote: gridasov

And thank God for doing stupid things.

How good it is that there is an opportunity to do "nonsense". Learns, gain experience, try something new, indulge in and this does not threaten, in case of failure, hunger in his native country.

[gridasov]

What do you think in the nature of natural events is the parameter for committing not thought out and not rational events. Doing not thoughtful actions means paying for these nonsense. Let's take a look at the performance with obvious consequences

[Tarhan]

In general, the Americans copied exactly our Lightning project.

And, tell me, is there in general in this world that the Americans did not steal, did not copy? The USA has the most advanced science and the most advanced technology. And then they poke a terrible finger - "this is our development"

Russian project, only a project, not an airplane, a triplane "Hercules" NPO "Molniya", It was developed 1992 year.

Scaled Composites built its Stratolaunch Model 351, Based on previous 1970 American development, for the transportation of shuttles and for their air launch.
Aircraft Conroy Virtus.

Wingspan: 450 feet (140 m)
Wing Area: 22 sq. M. Feet (166 m 2)
Aspect Ratio: 9
Maximum take-off weight: 850 pounds (000 kg)
Powerplant: 4 × Pratt & Whitney JT9D -3A large bypass turbofans, 45,800 lbf (204 kN) thrust each
Cruise speed: 300 mph (483 km / h; 261 kN)
Radius: 3 miles (000 miles per hour; 2 km)
Service ceiling: 11000 m

[Klimov]

Quote: Tarkhan

tell me, is there in general in this world that the Americans did not steal, did not copy? The USA has the most advanced science and the most advanced technology. And then they poke a terrible finger - "this is our development"

despite the fact that the USSR stole b 29, a sandwinder rocket and tried to copy it to the extent of the backwardness of electronics, kept trailing behind in the field of hypersonic research, and introduced the fourth generation of fighters with a lag of ten years, the Uryashkins are still trying to convince that the United States stolen nothing there in the world.
and the epic about ibm’s processor theft is generally beyond.
Thank God that stupid American Jews handed over the nuclear bomb documentation, otherwise it would be fun.

[ksv36]

Engage in self-education. The Intel processor, or rather its structure, was stolen from the USSR. This is the development of our minds, which sailed over the hill pulling and developing. The USSR back in 50-60 years. There were developments on flexible LCD screens. Somewhere in Novosibirsk, I don’t remember exactly. Sometimes you need to get up from the couch and pick up books in your hands if you know what a book is.

[bk316]

and the epic about ibm’s processor theft is generally beyond.

I guess I missed something in this life .... Tell me?

[AVLAD50]

And the engines were taken from the B-747, they did not create another.

[hrych]

Assigned you the original title (then they can and zaminusut of course), wear shoulder straps with honor

[ProkletyiPirat]

Quote: hrych

For starters, the very idea of ​​an air launch is flawed. Therefore, neither the USSR nor the USA began to implement it. They had a shuttle

Stop stop stop, why are you juggling the facts? You started talking about "air launch", and cite the problems of "ground launch" as its inferiority?
Yes, neither in the USSR nor in the USA were there air launch projects simply because there were no bulky carriers, they began to appear much later, but all these projects did not receive funding because they were not interesting to the military and not interesting to the state due to restrictions on the maximum mass dimensions of the launch cargo (which is important when starting at GSO and beyond). But when you start something smaller and closer, they are possible and will become more effective relative to the classic multi-stage launch vehicles.

[abrakadabre]

These are written-off American patrol boats, which cannot all reach the shores of Ukraine due to insufficient seaworthiness.

For such a delivery, he needs guaranteed runways of the corresponding parameters.

[Rzzz]

It should weigh about 250 tons. Landing one on the Dnieper in Kiev, the second on the pond in the estate is powdered, so that every day I feel the support of AMERICA, which is with them.

[Nicholas C.]

Americans cannot come up with anything of their own. Only theft, only robbery. Details here: www.buran.ru/htm/aviager.htm Surely the developers of the "American" aircraft are the same.

[Yegorchik]

Quote: Nikolay S.

The Americans cannot come up with anything of their own. Only theft, only robbery.

Of course I understand that you are in a patriotic frenzy, but why lie? Tell you how the Tu-4 was made?

[Infinity]

Was Lightning built in metal? Or has it remained on paper? Between the real machine (which is the Stratolaunch Model 351) and the project (which is the "Lightning") - the goal is a chasm in the form of many years of R&D.
And the designer was American Rutan Bird, who, even before Stratolaunch and "Lightning", designed two-fuselage aircraft.
Well, an example about the Tu-4, which is almost an exact copy of the B-29, received from the "dumb Americans" under Lend-Lease, you have already written to you.

[Andrei Gurov]

Only here again the bad luck is that in order to plant him with these boats, the kaklams will need to build an airstrip. And judging by the construction of their fence, I think never.

[Piramidon]

Quote: Andrei Gurov

Only here again the bad luck is that in order to plant him with these boats, the kaklams will need to build an airstrip. And judging by the construction of their fence, I think never.

It is also possible to deliver by non-stop (parachute) method.

[Andrei Gurov]

The right decision, only to create an institute first, to develop a parachute system, to test, the result is the same - never.

[spektr9]

Although Mriya is smaller but! Much more efficient than this "frame"

True, and how successfully did Maria take off air missions, were they very effective?

[Observer2014]

Quote: spektr9

Although Mriya is smaller but! Much more efficient than this "frame"

True, and how successfully did Maria take off air missions, were they very effective?

Didn’t. Didn’t have time. Do you have a 90? If you didn’t notice. All? Or what else?

[spektr9]

Didn’t. Didn’t have time. Do you have a 90? If you didn’t notice. All? Or what else?

Of course we didn’t have time, of course it’s more effective, hurray, hurray, hurray
And so, in secret, Mary had one task to carry oversized cargo on the fuselage, but you certainly tell us how it was built for air launches

[Babalaykin]

oh come on you, there are at least two ways:
1. At altitude, the pilot gently throws back his nose and "unloads" the rocket into the air, then it flies where it needs to go, this method if the rocket is inside the aircraft.
2. if the rocket is on top, then the pilot only needs to turn the plane over and drop the rocket, and then everything is clear.

[Piramidon]

Quote: Babalaykin

oh come on you, there are at least two ways:
1. At altitude, the pilot gently throws back his nose and "unloads" the rocket into the air, then it flies where it needs to go, this method if the rocket is inside the aircraft.
2. if the rocket is on top, then the pilot only needs to turn the plane over and drop the rocket, and then everything is clear.

The Shnobel Prize is provided to you.

[Piramidon]

Quote: spektr9

... with Mary ... with Mary ...

Mriya and Maria are not the same thing.

[onix757]

We didn’t. They didn’t have time.

oddly enough, most enterprises did not survive the "prosperous" 2000s

[KrokodilGena]

Quote: Observer2014

They didn’t. They didn’t have time. 90 you struck if you did not notice.

And were you going? Were Mriy going to launch rockets? Seriously?!! And what’s wrong with the 90s, you can look at the number of design bureaus, the growth of high-precision engineering, there are statistics from both the 90s and 2000s, it’s not hard to find out where that grew and where it fell. Oil and gas prices were an order of magnitude lower .. In my opinion, great events took place, along with other similar ones, for example, a Soviet probe with video equipment on Venus, that this carrier, that Falcon Heavy Mask, or a black hole photo, are events which will go down in the history of all mankind and besides respect for the designers, workers who did this, it would seem that no other feelings should seem to cause. Why so much flooding and bile?

[another RUSICH]

And from this "monster" have already conducted air starts, right?)

[spektr9]

And from this "monster" have already conducted air starts, right?)

Well, if not, then what is yelling about

Although Mriya is smaller but! Much more efficient than this "frame"

Or according to the method of grandmother Vanga, to compare the effectiveness?

[another RUSICH]

Firstly, no one here screams, and secondly, Mriya was created for other purposes, which she successfully completed. Thirdly, this new monster showed only the ability to take off on its own, that's all.
And here it was quite reasonable to note that the carrying capacity, to put it mildly, is not very good for satellite launches. Profitability is also in great doubt.
Raise this giant in the air to launch a small satellite? Well, let's not make premature delighted eyes, but wait how it all ends?

[spektr9]

let's not make premature delighted eyes

Yes, yes, as true little creatures, we should make eyes only with Rogozin’s remarkable plans to build another base on the moon and launch the federation

[bk316]

What starts - the first flight.

[NEXUS]

Quote: Observer2014

Although Mriya is smaller but!

AN-225 "Mriya" made its first flight in 1988, that is, 30 years ago. And at the same time, the dimensions of Mriya are much more modest than that of this miracle-yud, with equal carrying capacity. Well, how can you once again not say about the real greatness of the USSR ... eeh

[KrokodilGena]

Quote: NEXUS

And at the same time, the dimensions of Mriya are much more modest than that of this miracle-yuda, with equal carrying capacity. Well, here again, one cannot say about the real greatness of the USSR ... eh

Any normal fan of aviation, space, technology enjoys the next big event, along with Falcon Heavy and other similar events, it is not clear why all this bile and flood about An and other rubbish?

[NEXUS]

Quote: KrokodilGena

it is not clear why all this bile and flood about An and other nonsense?

It is unfortunate that you did not understand ... this is not gall and not flooding, but regret for the loss of the Great Country, of which I and many here are from.

[onix757]

Below we will explain why in the Russian Federation they cannot give a technologically symmetrical answer.
1) Expensive
2) Pointless
3) Passed stage (meaning SOVIET Mriya.)

[donavi49]

1) This project is the brainchild of Paul Allen - the American billionaire. He died - and the project stalled. I repeat in the West now a new trend - to finance innovation, science, space. A poster in the background of its rocket / system / or major scientific discovery = is considered much cooler than the 150 meter yacht with helicopters and submarines. We still have the Yacht, Castle and Football Club = a set of self-respecting oligarch.
2) There is a sense - if there is a load. Initially, this system could remove 2-3 existing Pegasus-HL missiles from Northrop-Orbital at a time (they have the old DS with the carrier of the problem - it crumbles). Also, any other similar missiles - for example, LauncherOne from another oligarch Branson (but 747 Boeing is now used there).
3) Mriya - only in wet fantasies on napkins did something deduce. So this is a truck that can carry oversize both inside and out. This unit is a so-so oversized truck.

[Gray brother]

Quote: donavi49

. I repeat in the West now a new trend - to finance innovation, science, space. A poster against the background of its rocket / system / or major scientific discovery = is considered much cooler than a 150 meter yacht with helicopters and submarines. We still have the Yacht, Castle and Football Club = a set of self-respecting oligarch.

Well, which one of you is who?

[donavi49]

Well, I wrote a comment an hour earlier. Stealing is not good.

However, I repeat, this is Allen’s private project - which 2 once killed Cancer, but failed in the third.
And so, he really invested money in science. Even when he was going to rest, he was engaged in research and financed them.

In particular, he even attracted his yachts to research; he found the same Musashi.

Moreover, on his yacht

And a bunch of other ships, Lex, Junao, Helena, after his death, the last lifetime-sponsored expedition found Hie at a kilometer depth.

[Gray brother]

Quote: donavi49

Well, I wrote a comment an hour earlier. Stealing is not good.

I won’t get to the bottom of you, but my suspicions arose. I also wrote a comment on bmpd similar to the one that I wrote in this thread and also later.

[LiSiCyn]

Quote: Gray Brother

Well, which one of you is who?

Interesting movie ... Fast, you
Counterintelligence?

[Gray brother]

Quote: LiSiCyn

Counterintelligence?

No, just Gunya looks like a red rag.

[loki565]

Funny)))

[Ural-4320]

It’s just that money is of no value now. The money lying in the capsule is dead money, except for the bank in which it lies. Therefore, people invest their savings, because it has long been postponed for the comfortable existence of themselves and relatives, and it is always interesting to participate in a new project.

[U-58]

Expensive yes.
But why the passed stage?
In our country, it has not been completed ....
For the land, 5-6 ships of the Mriya type are needed.
And try the space launch as carriers of Orlyonok and A-42 in the form of a rescue system for surface ships and submarines anywhere in the world’s oceans

[NEXUS]

Quote: onix757

3) Passed stage (meaning SOVIET Mriya.)

That is, what the USSR did 30 years ago, and brilliantly, the mattresses are only trying to repeat now. Regarding the pointlessness of creating such a platform as Mriya ... there is Ruslan, in the version of An-124-100-150, with a payload capacity of 150 tons. And for me, such a machine is needed not only by our military, but also in the civilian sphere would be very popular.

[viktor_ui]

Andrey ... 30 years have passed, an hour of execution technology is ABSOLUTELY DIFFERENT from the word AT ALL (they have it for sure). Why is the carrier made of just such a shape ... the future objects launched by it have an increasingly complicated external shape with a VARIABLE GEOMETRY of the body itself. And this design will be the best fit in terms of centering and stability of the assembled carrier + payload complex. And it will take off, and send the "parcel" to its destination, and sit down ... this frame of the 21st century has more than enough human and electronic brains

[NEXUS]

Quote: viktor_ui

30 years have passed, an hour of execution technology TOTALLY OTHER from the word AT ALL

The technologies, these are just others, are much more modern, and the mattresses are ONLY NOW trying to create a platform with a carrying capacity of 250 tons. And not the fact that it will turn out. And for me, I think it will work out most likely, as with Zamvolt. This is not gloating or cheers-patriotic nonsense, but the conclusion based on the fact that the mattresses turned out to be breakthrough in the last 20 years. Either wildly expensive and with disease, or again wildly expensive, and not competent. In the USA, there is a crisis of scientific ideas. To create an iPhone is one thing, and to build a working platform with a carrying capacity of 250 tons to launch rockets into space is completely different.
Of course, I may be mistaken in my conclusions, but I think if mattresses have something with this project, it will be either very expensive or so technological that diseases in this platform will be like fleas on a dog.

[viktor_ui]

As I understand it, it is all made of "carbon" and made by a private company with an interesting specialization, sharpened for technological breakthroughs (they have been engaged in promising developments there since the end of the 80s and are testing prototypes). And note that for an hour private firms are going to break through, using the cutting edge of high technologies previously available only to government agencies. NASA is increasingly starting to monitor and verify their growing activities under its patronage and expertise, which is SANE ... And the breakthrough technologies of the direction of the United States and their like-minded people can be interpreted with signs of the 6th level of the technological order of their living standard. Hence the achievements in robotics Boston Dynamics, Zamwolts as development concepts, robotic medical surgical complexes, autonomous systems for ground and space use, which are not made in the sense that they are very smart ... but in the sense that they can effectively work for years in harsh conditions without maintenance. ... New types of observation systems ... for example, a synthesized real photo of a real black hole. Construction of roads and houses based on 3D printing. The scale of work with the sizes of nano-objects for them and for us will clearly not in our favor. ... we can go on and on, because this is international cooperation in action and we are technologically losing. The gap in the spectrum of urgent problems to be solved, requirements and tasks of the world level will only grow. Well, at least the army was smart enough to deal with those in power.
The school of engineers was ruined and this can be seen almost everywhere. There are narrow areas where we still keep the brand ... but Russia is not the USSR from the word in general and will never be self-sufficient (degradation of personnel and population in terms of size and professional suitability is a fact). So far it looks like this.

[NEXUS]

Quote: viktor_ui

The school of engineers was ruined and this can be seen almost everywhere.

In another thread, I already wrote ...

The most modern and prestigious schools in England have completely switched to the "Soviet" education system.

Ms. Justin Greening, head of the UK Department of Education, told the bbc that the process of transferring British high schools to the Soviet Union education system has been completed. Justin Greening
In England, the Soviet experience of teaching in secondary schools began to be adopted in the 80 of the last century. The process began after the fall of the Iron Curtain, which allowed the British to see and appreciate the indisputable advantage of the educational system used in the USSR in comparison with the one adopted in Western European countries.



During her speech, Madame Minister especially dwelled on the fact that in England children are now studying according to the brilliant textbooks of Rosenthal, Landau and Kolmogorov.

The textbooks were translated into English extremely scrupulously, in compliance with the most important requirement - to completely preserve their content, avoiding any distortion. As a result of the transition to the Soviet system of education, the level of knowledge acquired by British students turned out to be much higher in comparison with the indicators demonstrated by graduates of the most prestigious and expensive elite schools in continental Europe.

And this is nifiga is not funny. The Soviet education system has proven its effectiveness over time, since even in the same defense we rely on the achievements and breakthroughs of the Soviet period.
And now, our opponent has taken de facto this education system into service, and we have abandoned it.
And in 10-20 years, we will receive in the West a level of science, culture, technology that we, at least, will not be able to catch up. Young people who will be taught on this system will not be formatted minded, extraordinary and progressive. And as I said, this is more terrible for us than all NATO missiles combined.

[viktor_ui]

We have a MINING BRAIN and that’s it. It is good if parents help their offspring with additional development (if they themselves have brains with an appropriate level of education and self-education). The hurt of the USSR in terms of engineering is already almost exhausted, and there are catastrophically few new ones. But lawyers, fiscals, deputies, pop stars and other woodpeckers in bulk ... that is, people who are not able to create and maintain knowledge-intensive production and technology. An hour I see how in my city they are trying to cut down on system engineers and IT specialists ... and after watching the amazement of the rams, they look with bewilderment as the created technological chains begin to bend without the support of specialists. Optimizers, well, stupid.
And in the West they are far from stupid, that's why they take all the best from the USSR

[tuts]

In the morning I watch the news on the topwar. From the beginning I look at the photo, then I read the headline and then on to the next news

cool happened

[askort154]

".. Moreover, the maximum take-off weight of the Stratolaunch Model 351 is more than 589 tons ... "

It is always funny to read such specifications. What "more than 589 tons." ? 589 tons and 100 grams? And so on ..... ad infinitum?

[Tsoy]

Quote: askort154

It's always funny to read such characteristics. What is "more than 589 tons." ? 589 tons and 100 grams? And so on ..... ad infinitum?

Maximum takeoff weight: 589,670 kg

[askort154]

Choi .....Maximum take-off weight: 589,670 kg

Have you read the article? It is written there - "more than 589 tons".
What I noticed. In the characteristics of aircraft (LA) no
parameters - "More or less". There are only specific digits of the limit values ​​for the minimum and maximum operational parameters (mass, speed, overload, etc.) They are described in the flight operation manual for each type of aircraft, in the form specific numbers ! Therefore, to the minuses I refer with irony, I am sure they were set by couch "expert pilots".

[Tsoy]

Have you read the article? It says - "more than 589 tons".
What I noticed.

So I wrote you the exact figure. And I, too, minus slapped for it.

[abrakadabre]

589 tons and 100 grams?

And 100 grams ... for each. Plus a snack.

[Gray brother]

Quote: abrakadabre

589 tons and 100 grams?
And 100 grams ... for each

Yeah, for courage. The scheme is painfully dangerous, if it explodes, it’s all fails.

[Mordvin 3]

Quote: askort154

It's always funny to read such characteristics. What is "more than 589 tons." ? 589 tons and 100 grams?

What did you get to the bottom? Go to the sausage department, there is also a nutty seller.

[Fool]

Well, what to say, well done Americans ... There is a lot of money, you can implement such projects.

[YOUR]

Imagine how to plant this fool. Slightly warped and get a pile of scrap metal. Apparently everything is computerized, sits in an automated mode. The man controls the computer plants.
Missile launches from aircraft were carried out both with us and with them back in the late 70s. Then naturally everything was done for the war. An-22 one missile R-29 or An-124 there are 2 missiles. The rocket was pulled out of the plane with the help of a parachute, while in the air it stabilized vertically well, then it’s clear. They also had this and developed. But OSV-1 came and all this technique was repaired. Moreover, cruise missiles were widely introduced.

[Fool]

Quote: YOUR

Imagine how to plant this fool. Slightly warped and get a pile of scrap metal.

So I'm talking about that .... A lot of money, I think not particularly upset.

[askort154]

YOUR.... Imagine how to plant this fool. Slightly warped and get a pile of scrap metal. Apparently everything is computerized, sits in an automated mode

In addition, you need a special runway and taxiing. Everything must be created specifically for it. And where to "go to the alternate airfield" ?! There have been many "search engine" projects in the history of aviation, but not all of them were given the opportunity to translate into a long "life". Although, aviation has always been the vanguard of technology. It is the very first step in the exploration of the Cosmos.

[72jora72]

Imagine how to plant this fool. Slightly warped and get a pile of scrap metal. Apparently everything is computerized, sits in an automated mode. The man controls the computer plants.

It also seems to me that this is a dead end.

[donavi49]

There is no state money. The main ideologist and financier of the project is Paul Allen - 20bn of money. Again, if our oligarchs buy yachts, castles and football clubs. In the USA, it’s now fashion to finance science and space - it’s cooler than the 150 meter Yacht.

However, unfortunately Paul Allen died . Therefore, the project stalled. It was supposed to use these aircraft to launch rockets - other manufacturers in the first stage. And your rocket at the 2 stage.

Among the most likely customers are Northrop Orbital with Pegasus = who is still twitching on NASA grants.

And the new Launcher One missile from another oligarch Branson - he already has a contract for 36 missiles from OneWeb. Now he is launching with a Boeing 747 - which previously carried passengers to his airline (Virginia).

[Tsoy]

Quote: Durilka

Well, what to say, well done Americans ... There is a lot of money, you can implement such projects.

The project is private. So it could be built in any country and there would be a desire and willing to invest. The country is here as far as.

Then naturally everything was done for the war. An-22 one rocket P-29 or An-124 there 2 rocket. The rocket was pulled out of the plane with the help of a parachute, it stabilized vertically in the air, and then it became clear.

They still have target missiles launched from C-130.

SRALT is a single-stage solid-fuel rocket, which was created on the basis of the surplus engines of the 2 th stage of the LGM-30F ICBM. “Minuteman II” - “Aerojet” SR19-AJ-1. In the first test launch, the SRALT rocket was located in the cargo compartment of the C-130 Hercules transporter. Since then, the SRALT target missile has been used only once — in August, 2004 — to provide a target field for testing the Israeli Arrow-2 interceptor missile. In this case, the SRALT carrier was the C-17 Globemaster.

LRALT (Long Range Air Launched Target) is conceptually similar to the SRALT, but it is a two-stage target using two SR19-AJ-1 rocket engines in tandem. The launch is carried out from the C-17 Globemaster transport aircraft. The missile is used by the missile defense agency to simulate the threats of ICBMs. After the demo launch of the 2004 in May, the first operational mission of LRALT took place in September of the 2005. At that time, the tracking capability of ICBMs by ground radar AN / FPS-108 COBRA DANE was evaluated.

A Pegasus launch vehicle does not belong to the military. Created initially for civilian purposes.

From 1990 to 2013, the launch of the Pegas carrier was launched with artificial satellites injected into orbit, of which the launch 42 was unsuccessful and 3 was also partially unsuccessful. Since 2, all 1997 launches have been successful.

[Tsoy]

There was a video of the first flight.

[rocket757]

We'll see. Can a sky aerobic be built?

[Sergst]

But there is no information about the effectiveness of such starts? The shuttles were pretty bad with this ... I would like to see the numbers on this subject.

[rocket757]

An experiment, whatever it is, brings results!
Let it be positive, let it be negative, it’ll all work.

[voyaka uh]

The Hubble telescope was launched from the Shuttles, the Galileo spacecraft and a bunch of vehicles for science. The Shuttle had a huge cargo hold. More than any heavy rocket. In terms of cargo weight, the Shuttles were not champions, but in terms of volumetric cargo, yes.

[rocket757]

Yankees want to be pioneers!
This is normal and they often succeed.
You can criticize all obs, although in the normal way, you need to adopt the experience and it will be a prospect, if everything is taken in mind!

[Tsoy]

Quote: rocket757

We'll see. Can a sky aerobic be built?

This is not a flying aircraft. This is much closer:

[rocket757]

Carrier for drones, also an option. True, the carrier is so slow, vulnerable, but we can try against the Papuans. Not against everyone, already, otherwise the costs of self-defense will be prohibitive, we may not have enough space / volumes for strike systems !!!
They will experiment, they no longer consider money at all, for the sake of their idea a fix.
It doesn't matter which of the ideas / experiment can "shoot"!

[Tsoy]

Carrier for drones, also option. True carrier is so slow, vulnerable, but we can try against the Papuans.

They also have such a thing. Last year was tested. Gremlin A flock of optionally returned UAVs. Stuck extremely interesting and promising. Carrier C-130.

[rocket757]

There are mani, there are resources, there are technologies and still will be, people / specialists too!
Schaub was not told there, all to one, i.e. progress!
Watch and take an example! Just snort, show your mind or nonsense, the road to nowhere.

[Obi-Wan Kenobi]

Well done Americans.
Good plane done.
It is interesting to see a rocket launch from it.

[knn54]

Paul Allen is dead. Who raised the banner?
Another thing is interesting: a couple of years ago, a UNIQUE project "Lightning-1000" was shelved. And the Yankes got the aforementioned "clone" ...

[Spinner74]

Let it fly constantly, just interesting! Then take off from or each or every other day the earth is shaking! Pancake dagger!

[rotmistr60]

about the first flight

I did not have time to make the plane first flight, and American fans are already gasping for success and with great dislike for those who "dared" to criticize this issue (the presence of minuses speaks volumes about this). Photo in a frame and on the wall for prayer.

[boathouse]

Gentlemen, do you at least remember why "Mriya" was created? What is the "air start"? She had to "drag" and "dragged" on her hump all the oversized items for the "Energia-Buran" program. "Mriya" and as an ordinary transport aircraft could be used with great stretch.

[bang]

What is the "air start"?
"Mriya" and as an ordinary transport aircraft could be used with great stretch.
On the eve of the collapse of the alliance, a twin Mriya with a maximum take-off weight of 670 tons was conceived for the "air launch".
"Mriya" is used as an ordinary transport company, another thing is that there are not enough orders.

By the way, now it's up to the Chinese, what will they do with Mriya-2)

[boathouse]

Anything. Depends only on them, Chinese fantasies.

[rocket757]

For heavyweight and airfields suitable are not enough! Anyway, where he can’t sit down / take off!

[voyaka uh]

A private company assembled the plane for itself. To make money on launching satellites with light rockets.
The second copy is not planned yet

[fa2998]

Quote: hrych

Can it replace or compare with the first stage of the Union? And its operation and storage, is it really so cheap and safe pleasure?

To operate the same Union, a cosmodrome is needed. Rogozin has been digging money into Vostochny for 10 years, and no end has yet been seen. Besides, an extra thousand kilometers to the south is a big plus. It can even launch an airplane from the equator, Vostochny - and so It’s clear. And besides, is a stationary spaceport so cheap? There are also expenses there. Efficiency, cost of the Union should be considered TOGETHER with ground objects.
For light missiles (of which there are plenty), the Americans made a good system.

[Lugansk Starley]

Well, the barn, of course. And what are they going to carry on it? RN launch? I don’t think this is a good idea.

[universe1]

Well, expand your thoughts wider. The shed is not a shed, but it will work with a cheap launch of light satellites and will cope with a bang.

[universe1]

Elon Musk with his missiles, now an air launch ... Rogozin mentioned something about the wrong country when he spoke about trampolines.

[universe1]

QED

[boathouse]

Watch out! He (Rogozin) promised to bring everyone to court for slander!

[geologist]

With a similar idea began his journey in the development of extraterrestrial space Korolev. According to the initial plan, an ordinary airplane takes off from the aerodrome at a low speed, then in the process of gaining speed and altitude the maize is converted into a supersonic airplane, then into a hypersonic missile, etc. until it goes into space. In this case, the wings and the piston engine are crushed into powder and serve as fuel for the rocket, i.e. the device does not lose weight, but burns it in the form of fuel. This idea has not yet been implemented. mankind, apparently, is still early. Or maybe this is generally a dead end? The principle of weight loss Korolev then realized in a multi-stage rocket. The Americans partially realized this idea in a combination of an aircraft with a multi-stage rocket. Musk has now come up with reusable missiles without an airplane, but all this is only a little approximation to the ideas proposed at the beginning of the twentieth century. Perhaps the idea of ​​an airplane transforming into a rocket using surplus in the form of fuel is yet to come. On earth, this idea is not very reasonable, and in wild space far from bases it is quite logical.

[Top Gun]

Quote: knn54

And the Yankes have the aforementioned "clone" ...

This "clone" has been in development since 2011. Of course, I understand that in a triotic rage you may not blurt out something else, but why should you be so openly disgraced?

[srha]

Everyone, absolutely all aerospace firms and countries, tried an air launch in the 20th century. Almost everyone refused. Some are more intelligent - quickly, some less - fiddled longer. Doesn't pay off. The only exception is Pegasus, which specializes in small scales (up to half a ton), where they do not want to wait for an assembly of a dozen small satellites (or orbits too much). Even the scrapping of old ballistic missile stages by air launch has hardly paid off.
But the matter is in the energy sector. If you remember the school, then the dependence on the speed mv is squared in half, and on the height mgh - you can calculate the savings on the height of 10 m, and the speed of 000 m / s (250 km / h) on the required 900 m and 400 m / s - a few percent. The speed of the Earth’s rotation at the equator is 000 m / s, and then it gives more growth (if you let it go along the rotation vector).

[Old26]

Quote: ROSS 42

The aircraft performed the first flight test over the American Mojave Desert. There is also a special hangar, where the giant was rolling out in 2017.

Let it fly there. We have already got acquainted with the "very best". God forbid it flies somewhere else - count a one-way ticket. It doesn't matter what it will be: a carrier or disperse the air ...

And he is going to fly there. he has no need "where to fly to another place." The runway is there, the hangar too, the payload will be delivered.

Quote: hrych

For starters, the very idea of ​​an air launch is flawed. Therefore, neither the USSR nor the USA began to implement it.

It is not flawed, but it is also not worth making a wunderwaffe from it. Certain loads are easier to remove from an air launch, although in terms of parameters such a missile can lose and ground. But the aircraft can be used to output to any orbits, and not to specific ones, as from spaceports
As for the incarnation, we really didn’t go Burlak. For the Americans, this has not only been embodied since 1990, but continues to develop. In particular, "Pegasus" was launched 64 times. LauncherOne launches are planned in the amount of about 44 this year (the carrier is Boeing-747-400). As for Stratolaunch, the Eagles rocket system, consisting of a Stratolaunch aircraft and a Thunderbolt rocket, is capable of launching into low orbit not 400-500 kg of cargo, like Pegasus and LauncherOne, but a load of more than 6 tons ...

Quote: hrych

Shuttle rested in Bose due to accident rate

The shuttle accident was measured by the death of 2 ships. After 135 flights, the program was discontinued not because of an accident, but because of errors on the American side of the economic plan. The calculations that the shuttle would take off every week and launch would be cheaper than with disposable missiles were not justified. The error led to the fact that over 30 years of operation 4 shuttles made only 135 flights, although it was calculated that each of the shuttles could withstand up to 100 flights. But this error is not a concept, but economists ....

Quote: hrych

The USSR developed the modular construction of orbital stations, and the Unions and Protons dragged modules. The shuttle rested in the Bose due to accident rate, and our concept was embodied in the ISS, where the Unions carry astronauts.

"Everyone chooses for himself
Woman, religion, road
The devil serves or the prophet
Everyone chooses for himself "(c)
The Americans had a choice at the end of the Saturn-Apollo program. They could only choose one of several options. There was no money for everything at once - the Vietnam War was still underway. They made a bet on the ship, we went to the station. And the shuttle concept was not flawed. The ship was supposed not only to deliver satellites into orbit, but also to remove the spent ones for repair and subsequent launch
The modules were carried only by "Protons", even the lightest of them, Quantum (37KE) was taken out by "Proton". The ISS concept is not only the MIR-2 DOS concept, but also the concept of the US-based FRIDOM station. And that, and the other differed from the concept of building the complex "MIR"

Quote: hrych

Even if this freak raises 250 tons, then this does not mean anything. Not the most lifting Union has a starting weight of more than 300 tons.

And where can Soyuz launch the payload? do not forget that the maximum orbital inclination is determined by the latitude of the launch site. Each spaceport has the ability to launch vehicles in a very narrow orbital tilt interval. Air launch is not limited to this. Moreover, this system allows using a rocket weighing up to 250 tons to launch a load weighing more than 6 tons into low orbit. Orbital inclinations from 35 ° to sun-synchronous, that is, with an inclination of 90 degrees or more ...

Quote: hrych

And what can this freak lift up by no more than 20 km, where the wings still provide lift, and the engines are not choked with a small percentage of oxygen.

This freak raises the Thunderbolt rocket, which in turn carries a load of 6123 kg per 200 km orbit

[Old26]

Quote: another RUSICH

Not the fact that it is cheaper. Add infrastructure here, with staff, maintenance, and then missile launches will seem like a fairy tale.

To launch the launch vehicle, infrastructure is also needed. Nobody says that it will be very cheap, but taking into account the fact that the system is not limited by the inclination of the orbit, this will lead to the fact that the infrastructure of such an aerodrome-cosmodrome will be cheaper6 than building several cosmodromes in different parts of the country to launch in different orbits, or refine oneself from one, but at the same time launching a smaller load ...

Quote: APASUS

It’s me, first of all, to the right to an invention, about which the Americans have always been talking to us

Apart from the drawing, we had nothing. And this is not the subject of law ... Or it was then necessary to patent, if you would like to have the right ...
In addition, the American only looks like ours, and is not a copy to talk about the right to invention

Quote: AVLAD50

And the engines were taken from the B-747, they did not create another.

Why invent if these engines fit ???

Quote: Egorchik

Quote: Nikolay S.

The Americans cannot come up with anything of their own. Only theft, only robbery.

Of course I understand that you are in a patriotic frenzy, but why lie? Tell you how the Tu-4 was made?

Or how was the R-7 or N-1 rocket made ??? By the way, the same question can be asked about the Buran ...

Quote: spektr9

Didn’t. Didn’t have time. Do you have a 90? If you didn’t notice. All? Or what else?

Of course we didn’t have time, of course it’s more effective, hurray, hurray, hurray
And so, in secret, Mary had one task to carry oversized cargo on the fuselage, but you certainly tell us how it was built for air launches

Ну "Mriya" (Dream)And not Maria was not planned at all for an air launch. Her only task was the delivery of the "Buran". and not as on "Atlanta" in a disassembled state on "Baikonur" from the factory, but assembled. True, for subsequent versions of the MAKS type with an air launch, it was planned to use the Mriya, but not in its original form, the AN-225, but in the EMNIP version in the form of the AN-325 aircraft, which was not created at all

Quote: Babalaykin

oh come on you, there are at least two ways:
1. At altitude, the pilot gently throws back his nose and "unloads" the rocket into the air, then it flies where it needs to go, this method if the rocket is inside the plane ..

Well, at the same time, the air flow probably will not tear off the nose of such an aircraft. I hesitate to ask, but for such a "load" of the rocket, you also turn on the engine in the fuselage ????

Quote: Babalaykin

oh come on you, there are at least two ways:
2. if the rocket is on top, then the pilot only needs to turn the plane over and drop the rocket, and then everything is clear.

Flip and stone to the ground. There are also two options. Or a rocket to the ground, or a plane with a rocket ... You are our inventor. At least read how the same Americans reset and launch ICBMs from the fuselage of their aircraft ...

Quote: askort154

".. Moreover, the maximum take-off weight of the Stratolaunch Model 351 is more than 589 tons ... "

It is always funny to read such specifications. What "more than 589 tons." ? 589 tons and 100 grams? And so on ..... ad infinitum?

And sometimes you have to write like this in the situation you described. In one source, for example, 589 tons, and in another 595. Write 595 - it will be caught that I give overestimated data. Therefore, sometimes I also write either "a little more than XXXX tons", or "in the region of XXX tons"

Quote: Sergst

But there is no information about the effectiveness of such starts? The shuttles were pretty bad with this ... I would like to see the numbers on this subject.

Towards evening I will try to find materials at prices in the storage. But quantitatively I can tell right away. "Pegasus" - the first American with an air start made 64 flights. The current LauncherOne will first launch in the second quarter of this year. Several aerodromes are now being certified for the convenience of customers

Quote: askort154

In addition, you need a special runway and taxiing. Everything must be created specifically for it. And where to "go to the alternate airfield" ?! There have been many "search engine" projects in the history of aviation, but not all of them were given the opportunity to translate into a long "life". Although, aviation has always been the vanguard of technology. It is the very first step in the exploration of the Cosmos.

I don't know if they are going to "leave for an alternate airfield." but bad weather in the area of ​​the airfield does not threaten them. It is possible that the launches will be carried out somewhere in the vicinity of the airfield ...

[askort154]

Old26 ...... I don’t know if they are going to "leave for an alternate airfield." but bad weather in the area of ​​the airfield does not threaten them. It is possible that the launches will be carried out somewhere in the vicinity of the airfield ...

Man has not yet learned how to control the weather on Earth. Even predict it by 90%. Therefore, such an expensive monster, before launching it into the air, definitely needs an alternate airfield. But if it performs its task, only in the area of ​​this airfield, where the weather at the time of takeoff is "a million to a million," then launching missiles from it will still be more vulnerable, in anticipation of weather conditions, than from a stationary launch pad (although , even there, there is a dependence on the weather). The idea of ​​launching heavy rockets from a carrier aircraft is not new, but has not yet been realized. But the "Dagger" on the MiG-31 is already working.

[Vladimir Postnikov]

If Americans had a sense of humor, they could well call this plane "Trampoline", albeit not formally. And rightly so.

[Old26]

Quote: askort154

Old26 ...... I don’t know if they are going to "leave for an alternate airfield." but bad weather in the area of ​​the airfield does not threaten them. It is possible that the launches will be carried out somewhere in the vicinity of the airfield ...

Man has not yet learned how to control the weather on Earth. Even predict it by 90%. Therefore, such an expensive monster, before launching it into the air, definitely needs an alternate airfield. But if it performs its task, only in the area of ​​this airfield, where the weather at the time of takeoff is "a million to a million," then launching missiles from it will still be more vulnerable, in anticipation of weather conditions, than from a stationary launch pad (although , even there, there is a dependence on the weather). The idea of ​​launching heavy rockets from a carrier aircraft is not new, but has not yet been realized. But the "Dagger" on the MiG-31 is already working.

Alexander, do you know many cases that for some short time the weather changed in the desert? And besides, launching from a fixed ground site also has one serious limitation - wind speed
The heavy rockets really didn't launch from the launch vehicle. the maximum that was was about 30-35 tons ("Minuteman"). "Dagger" in comparison with him is generally a trifle. Five times less mass and sorry almost ten times (compared to Minuteman) range. Launching short-range ballistic missiles has always been easier than launching long-range missiles. Now comes the "next coming" of air-to-surface ballistic missiles. The first was in the late 50s. but the accuracy was insufficient. Then there were the 70s. Now is another coming

[Maalkavianin]

Well done Americans. While our projects are being drawn up, they are doing their projects and launching them.

[Old26]

Quote: Infinity

Well, an example about the Tu-4, which is almost an exact copy of the B-29, received from the "dumb Americans" under Lend-Lease, you have already been written to

We did not receive B-29 Lend-Lease from the Americans. EMNIP did not even receive B-17. Three aircraft crashed in the USSR and were transported to Moscow ....

Quote: Sergst

But there is no information about the effectiveness of such starts? The shuttles were pretty bad with this ... I would like to see the numbers on this subject.

Pegasus' launch prices are quite high compared to one-off. According to some reports, from 40 to 56,3 million dollars (although there is a figure of 14 million). On the new LauncherOne, the launch price is planned at 10 million. How much on this system, about which the article is still unknown

Quote: YOUR

Missile launches from aircraft were carried out both with us and with them back in the late 70s. Then naturally everything was done for the war. An-22 one missile R-29 or An-124 there are 2 missiles. The rocket was pulled out of the plane with the help of a parachute, while in the air it stabilized vertically well, then it’s clear. They also had this and developed. But OSV-1 came and all this technique was repaired. Moreover, cruise missiles were widely introduced

The launch of Minuteman 1 in October 1974 from the S-5 was the first such launch. Of course there were plans. Both the USSR and the USA. In total, during the years of the Cold War in the USSR and the USA, projects were developed at least 27 systems (12 и 15 respectively), providing for air-based ballistic missiles. Three American projects reached the stage of flight tests, two more - to the throw ones. Of the Soviet developments, not a single one took off. Before the adoption of the case, the case has never reached the United States.
As for the fact that they "pochikali" them under the SALT-1 agreement, this is not true. The agreement was signed in 1975, and there was nothing in it about the BRVZ. But in the SALT-2 treaty and, accordingly, START-1, such provisions appeared. There was a ban on the use of ballistic missiles with a range of more than 600 km and a ban on the use of transport and passenger aircraft as a carrier of any type of missile. Both ballistic and winged

Quote: srha

All, absolutely all aerospace companies and countries in the 20th century tried an air launch. Almost everyone refused. Some who are more reasonable - quickly, some less - messed around longer.

In fact, only the Americans and we tried to try the air start. They came to flight tests - we do not. I don’t think, of course, X-15 missiles or the like. The Americans abandoned this idea (BRVZ on the plane) due to the fact that it was impossible to accurately position the starting point, which means that deviations at the finish point would be unbelievable ... In fact, only the Americans reached the flight test and now they use it very well air missile launchers

Quote: srha

The only exception is Pegasus, which specializes in small scales (up to half a ton), where they do not want to wait for the assembly of a dozen small satellites (or orbits too much).

Even Pegasus paid off. Unlike Pegasus, the cost of LauncherOne is several times less ... And the new Stratolaunch system, consisting of an Eagles aircraft and a Thunderbolt rocket, is still unknown. But the payload is over 6 tons ...

Quote: srha

Even the disposal of the stages of old ballistic missiles with an air launch practically did not pay off.

Why? The Americans use them as steps for their target missiles. They just do not put the production of such targets on stream, but release them as necessary. The steps are disheartened, you do not need to produce them and they do not cost anything.

Quote: srha

But the matter is in the energy sector. If you remember the school, then the dependence on the speed mv is squared in half, and on the height mgh - you can calculate the savings on the height of 10 m, and the speed of 000 m / s (250 km / h) on the required 900 m and 400 m / s - a few percent. The speed of the Earth’s rotation at the equator is 000 m / s, and then it gives more growth (if you let it go along the rotation vector).

The question is not so much in energy. The question is that with the help of such an air launch system it is possible to vary the parameters of the orbit, more precisely the inclination

[Egor Dedkov]

I wonder if, instead of a rocket, hang the cargo compartment, how many Abrams will he drag, 2 or as many as 3? After ours slowed down the hiring of our Ruslans by NATO, they had serious troubles with the logistics of bulky / bulk indivisible cargoes. I don’t know how the air launch complex, but the plane is impressive. Take off such a squeak from us, it would be ......

[the same doctor]

We see further development of the concept, first run in the B-25. I would call it a "flexible plane". Back then it was limited flexibility where strength and design could not be achieved. Here we see a general rejection of any kind of rigid connection between the two fuselages (the central wing is flexible enough). The joint flight of the two halves is carried out mainly due to computer control. I have no doubt that the commercially successful descendants of this aircraft will generally have articulations of the fuselage with the central wing of the type of wings with variable sweep.
.
But the "halves" can be three, four, and six ... The absence of a single body will reduce weight, and vertical takeoff will remove the weight limit.

[Vasily199]

Quote: Vladimir Postnikov

If Americans had a sense of humor, they could well call this plane "Trampoline", albeit not formally. And rightly so.

I suspect that the authors of the project do not give a damn about Mr. Rogozin

[Old26]

Quote: Egor Dedkov

I wonder if, instead of a rocket, hang the cargo compartment, how many Abrams will he drag, 2 or as many as 3? After ours slowed down the hiring of our Ruslans by NATO, they had serious troubles with the logistics of bulky / bulk indivisible cargoes. I don’t know how the air launch complex, but the plane is impressive. Take off such a squeak from us, it would be ......

"Abrams"? What for. This aircraft is being created as a launch platform for space launch vehicles. And they have someone to carry the Abrams
The Americans did not have any serious troubles with logistics. The Americans rented EMNIP cars from the Volga-Dnepr company. We have a dozen of them EMNIP. The Americans have only C-5 (analogue of our AN-124) of about 60. Of course, there were minor problems, because our rent is cheaper. And the logistics chain through the territory of Russia is shorter. And so. In terms of their parameters, the AN-124 and S-5 are very close. And the 150-ton indivisible cargo is extremely rare. And in general, the ranges are comparable at high loads ...

The plane is really impressive, as an example of the embodiment of technical thought.