flateric said:One hardly would say something about this. -31D (Article "07") stuff stays higly classified.
May be Paralay can add on. Oh, I haven't seen this photo yet...
sferrin said:From AvWeek:
"The characteristics of the current system remain unknown. But they are probably similar to those of the previous Kontakt system, which was intended to destroy nonmaneuvering or maneuvering satellites in low orbits.
The 79M6 missile, weighing 4,550 kg (10,000 lb.), was launched by a MiG-31D flying at a speed of Mach 2.55 and altitude of 22 km. "
antigravite said:sferrin said:From AvWeek:
"The characteristics of the current system remain unknown. But they are probably similar to those of the previous Kontakt system, which was intended to destroy nonmaneuvering or maneuvering satellites in low orbits.
The 79M6 missile, weighing 4,550 kg (10,000 lb.), was launched by a MiG-31D flying at a speed of Mach 2.55 and altitude of 22 km. "
Thx. Interesting. What is the exact source, please?
A.
yes, indeeed.US Navy/NOTS back in the late 1950s/early 1960s successfully demonstrated both capabilities. (See Hi Hoe)
Not to mention the USAF's Project Jaguar, which was ostensibly a sounding rocket designed to sample sub-orbital radiation effects from nuclear warhead detonations. It was launched from a Martin B-57 Canberra...yes, indeeed.US Navy/NOTS back in the late 1950s/early 1960s successfully demonstrated both capabilities. (See Hi Hoe)
A.
- History of Project Pilot (a.k.a NOTSNIK), US Naval Weapons Center, declassified and compiled 1976 [reference quoted by Andrew Page]
- Keith J. Scala, “A History of Air-Launched Space Vehicles”, Quest, Vol. 3, No. 1, pp. 34-41, Spring 1994 [https://spacehistory101.com/downloads/quest-vol-3-1/]
- Peter Pesavento, “US Navy’s Untold Story of Space-Related Firsts”, Spaceflight, Vol. 38, No. 7, pp. 239-243, July 1996
- Peter Pesavento, “Secret Revealed About the Early US Navy Space Programme”, Spaceflight, Vol. 38, No. 7, pp. 243-245, July 1996
- Andrew LePage, "NOTSNIK: The First Air-Launched Satellite Attempts", drewexmachina [Blog], 25 July 2018, acessed: https://www.drewexmachina.com/2018/07/25/notsnik-the-first-air-launched-satellite-attempts/
- Bernd Leitenberger, “Projekt Pilot”, bernd-leitenberger.de, [https://www.bernd-leitenberger.de/project-pilot.shtm]
Not to mention the USAF's Project Jaguar, which was ostensibly a sounding rocket designed to sample sub-orbital radiation effects from nuclear warhead detonations. It was launched from a Martin B-57 Canberra...yes, indeeed.US Navy/NOTS back in the late 1950s/early 1960s successfully demonstrated both capabilities. (See Hi Hoe)
A.
- History of Project Pilot (a.k.a NOTSNIK), US Naval Weapons Center, declassified and compiled 1976 [reference quoted by Andrew Page]
- Keith J. Scala, “A History of Air-Launched Space Vehicles”, Quest, Vol. 3, No. 1, pp. 34-41, Spring 1994 [https://spacehistory101.com/downloads/quest-vol-3-1/]
- Peter Pesavento, “US Navy’s Untold Story of Space-Related Firsts”, Spaceflight, Vol. 38, No. 7, pp. 239-243, July 1996
- Peter Pesavento, “Secret Revealed About the Early US Navy Space Programme”, Spaceflight, Vol. 38, No. 7, pp. 243-245, July 1996
- Andrew LePage, "NOTSNIK: The First Air-Launched Satellite Attempts", drewexmachina [Blog], 25 July 2018, acessed: https://www.drewexmachina.com/2018/07/25/notsnik-the-first-air-launched-satellite-attempts/
- Bernd Leitenberger, “Projekt Pilot”, bernd-leitenberger.de, [https://www.bernd-leitenberger.de/project-pilot.shtm]
E-155N
US Navy/NOTS back in the late 1950s/early 1960s successfully demonstrated both capabilities. (See Hi Hoe)
The MiG-25 can carry a device weighing no more than 5000-6000 kg under the fuselageI did some basic calculations.
A 12 metric tons, 2-stage rocket with Block D RD-58 kerolox engines, 345 second specific impulse and 0.90 prop mass fraction, boosted 2000 m/s by a Mach 3 MiG-25 - could lift 1 metric ton to orbit.
Just like the MiG-25 at a 45-degree angle at a height of 10 km with maximum speed you start climbing the MiG-25 at an altitude of over 20 km and by inertia and low air resistance somewhere a plane can move at an altitude of 30 -35 km in height and then you launch the carrier rocket and because at this height you have quite small air and thus little resistance but also acceleration of the rocket from the aircraft itself up to 2.8 Mach or 3 Mach gave more more potential For example if this rocket is fire on the sea levеl аnd has a range of 50 km but if this rocket is fire of 35 km altitude would have a range of 6 times more due to poor air resistance but also acceleration and will reach a distance of 250-300 km or leo orbit.Hi,
does anyone hear about the development of MiG-31 to be use
in satellite launch aircraft ?.
A study by Klijn et al. concluded that at an altitude of 15250m, a rocket launch with the carrier vehicle having a zero launch velocity at an angle of attack of 0° to the horizontal experienced a Δv benefit of approximately 600m/s.
The zero launch velocity situations can be used to represent the launch from a balloon as it has no horizontal velocity.
A launch at a velocity of 340m/s at the same altitude and angle of attack resulted in a Δv benefit of approximately 900m/s.
Furthermore, by increasing the angle of attack of the carrier vehicle to 30° and launching at 340m/s, a Δv gain of approximately 1100m/s was obtained.
Increasing the launch velocity to
- 681m/s produced a Δv gain of 1600m/s
- 1021m/s produced a Δv gain of 2000m/s
This link to a paper has some good numbers about the delta-v gains provided by air-launch.
A study by Klijn et al. concluded that at an altitude of 15250m, a rocket launch with the carrier vehicle having a zero launch velocity at an angle of attack of 0° to the horizontal experienced a Δv benefit of approximately 600m/s.
The zero launch velocity situations can be used to represent the launch from a balloon as it has no horizontal velocity.
A launch at a velocity of 340m/s at the same altitude and angle of attack resulted in a Δv benefit of approximately 900m/s.
Furthermore, by increasing the angle of attack of the carrier vehicle to 30° and launching at 340m/s, a Δv gain of approximately 1100m/s was obtained.
Increasing the launch velocity to
- 681m/s produced a Δv gain of 1600m/s
- 1021m/s produced a Δv gain of 2000m/s
At the end of the day
- launching from a balloon: +600 m/s
- launching at mach 1 and 30 degree AoA: +1100 m/s
- 681 m/s is mach 2 and the gain is +1600 m/s
- 1021 m/s is mach 3 and the gain is +2000 m/s
-Earth orbit is 9200 m/s (average) :
7700 m/s + 1500 m/s of gravity + drag + steering losses.
- The rocket equation has a logarithm stuck into it so it is not linear or decimal. For example, substracting 2000 m/s from 8000 m/s is NOT a 25% gain but much less (barely 10%). Energy-wise, launch to orbit is VERY horrible - notably the segment between 6 km/s and 9 km/s.
- The air-launch gain tends to diminish despite the carrier aircraft flying faster and faster. Mach 1 = +1100 m/s BUT Mach 2 does not bring a 2200 m/s gain and Mach 3 gain is even less.
- When you think about it, trippling the aircraft mothership speed
(mach 1 > mach 3) barely double the "air launch gain"
(1100 m/s > 2000 m/s)
Must be because of the heat barrier and hypersonics (IMHO).
- Launching from above 40 000 feet doesn't bring any benefit at least for orbital launches (ALBM, ASAT, ABM may not agree)
- Angle-of-attack is actually more important than altitude. Launching "nose up" greatly helps, throwing the rocket downwards dangling from a parachute = bad.