Newquay airport
Where it will soon be possible to get a direct flight to orbit, but not a direct bus to Truro.
RAF pilot seconded to Virgin Orbit for three years of launching rockets from a 747
An RAF Typhoon pilot has been posted to Virgin Orbit as part of the UK government's previously declared plan to grow Blighty's space industry. Flight Lieutenant Mathew Stannard, formerly of 41 Sqn RAF, will join the Beardy Branson-branded outfit later this year. Stannard will spend three years with the new rocket launch …
-
Thursday 3rd October 2019 12:53 GMT Anonymous Coward
Cornwall?
While it's nice that Newquay airport has an extra wide runway, the piggy-back launch plane is only a 747 so a normal runway would be fine.
What would surely make more sense would be to use an airport rather nearer to Sutherland (in Scotland) where our lovely new spaceport is planned, in order to help build a critical mass of jobs and skilled workers?
-
-
Thursday 3rd October 2019 13:18 GMT GruntyMcPugh
Re: Cornwall?
Or, say, RAF Scampton, which has a nice long runway, and lots of buildings and infrastructure, and will be available soon,... and this holds for a few more RAF bases.
I'm kinda peeved about Newquay Airport getting a 747 stationed there,.... as I frequent a very local campsite when I trot down to Cornwall for the annual surfing pilgrimage. It used to be kinda sleepy and quiet despite the airport, but the last twenty years has seen more and more aircraft, and even Jamie frikking Oliver opening a restaurant and ruining what used to be a nice casual beach bar that I used to be able to go in wearing a wetsuit, and take my dog with me.
-
Thursday 3rd October 2019 13:31 GMT TipsyTigger
Re: Cornwall?
The 747 won't be here that much - Virgin Orbit's plan is to have spaceports (runways) around the world so that they can deliver small satellites into any Low Earth Orbit the customer desires, so Cosmic Girl will be getting about a bit.
The maximum launches from Cornwall are predicted to be 8 a year, so not really a bother.
-
-
-
-
Friday 4th October 2019 20:39 GMT John Brown (no body)
Re: Cornwall?
"Ah, but not many opportunities in the RAF to go straight to BA with 4-engine qualifications."
If the RAF were to second a pilot to re-train as a 747 pilot, why send a fast jet jockey? The RAF have pilots whose job it is to fly big slow lumbering beasts already. I'd have thought one of them would be able to complete the re-training far more easily.
-
-
Friday 4th October 2019 09:37 GMT Korev
Re: Cornwall?
>What would surely make more sense would be to use an airport rather nearer to Sutherland (in Scotland) where our lovely new spaceport is planned, in order to help build a critical mass of jobs and skilled workers?
Cornwall is desperate for decent, skilled jobs too. It's one of the poorest regions in Europe, to the point that it qualifies for Objective One funding from the EU.
-
-
-
Thursday 3rd October 2019 14:14 GMT vtcodger
It'll be interesting
... to see how this all works out. About 60 years ago, some friends worked on a project to determine the feasibility of launching satellites from aircraft. Difficult as it may be to believe, it was perfectly possible back then to design an aircraft not dissimilar to the 747. The B-52 -- still the American standard long range bomber -- dates to that timeframe.
As I recall, their conclusion was something along the line of. Yes, you can (probably) build it. Yes, it will (probably) work. BUT There's no particular benefit to doing so. The aircraft's velocity does subtract from the roughly 17000/24500 mph/kph necessary to stay in low Earth orbit. But you still need one big mutha rocket to get the rest of the way to LEO.
And launching from say 30000/10000 ft/m does eliminate some atmospheric drag. But rockets don't travel that fast in the lower atmosphere where drag is greatest. They are still accelerating at low altitudes.
A flying launch vehicle is going to be complicated and expensive. Where are you going to mount the launch vehicle? If you sling it below the aircraft, how will you take off? If you mount it above, how do you get it clear of the rudder assembly when the aircraft and launch vehicle separate? How will you make sure that the second stage doesn't damage your flying first stage when it is released and ignited? All (probably) tractable problems. But problems non-the less.
Time will presumably tell.
-
Thursday 3rd October 2019 14:23 GMT TipsyTigger
Re: It'll be interesting
But satellite technology is much smaller now, hence commercial small satellite launch is becoming a viable market. The launcher is under the wing, and is small enough that it's not a problem. Virgin Orbit are saying they will use half the fuel of a traditional vertical launch, which again cuts down on weight and therefore required thrust. They are pitching for a £10M per launch compared with older horizontal (Pegasus) launch costs of about £60M per launch.
Vertical launch is still the go-to for heavy lift, though (see Elon Musk).
-
Thursday 3rd October 2019 16:39 GMT Pete 2
Re: It'll be interesting
> And launching from say 30000/10000 ft/m does eliminate some atmospheric drag
It's not the drag so much as the atmospheric pressure. The shape of the nozzle (where the exhaust comes out) plays a large part in the efficiency of the engine. And that shape is determined by the surrounding air pressure. What is best at ground level is different from what work at higher altitudes.
And since most of the travel will be through low-pressure air, higher up, the benefits of a more efflicient nozzle become significant.
In addition the amount of fuel that is burned just to get the rest of the stack up to 30,000 ft. is a saving too.
-
Thursday 3rd October 2019 17:52 GMT Daedalus
Re: It'll be interesting
The big savings, apparently, are in ground infrastructure. You need a lot of concrete to direct the rocket blast sideways, as well as water to damp down thermal shocks, and your rocket has to be built to withstand buffeting while it clears the pad. That all adds weight.
Orbital Sciences did small payload air launches years ago, before being pulled back into NASA's er, orbit. I tend to think the thought of private rocket launches from anywhere in the world gave certain parties the heebie jeebies. If you can get to orbit, you can get to anywhere on the planet. And a 500kg payload is a lot of weaponry....
-
-
Thursday 3rd October 2019 14:42 GMT Starace
Not a promotion is it
Rotating out to some other job is a pretty normal thing for his career, and at least he gets to do some flying (other than a desk), but I can't think of many fast jet pilots who'd see playing with an antique 747 as a great pastime even if they might get to shoot fireworks off it occasionally.
-
Thursday 3rd October 2019 15:16 GMT Commswonk
Re: Not a promotion is it
I can't think of many fast jet pilots who'd see playing with an antique 747 as a great pastime
Not sure about that. At some point he will leave the RAF and having experience of a multi - engined aircraft currently used in a civil role will stand him in good stead if he wants to become a commercial pilot.
-
-
-
-
-
-
Friday 4th October 2019 20:54 GMT John Brown (no body)
Re: Don't watch this one, Mathew
It's called The Smoke Ring and is populated with Integral Trees
-
-
-
-
-
-
This post has been deleted by its author
-
-
-
Friday 4th October 2019 09:41 GMT 2Fat2Bald
I don't recall the details. But there was a plan back in the day to launch rockets under huge balloons. The plan was they would float up (like giant weather balloons) to high altitude without using any fuel and then the rocket engine would ignite and blast the rocket through the balloon into space from 60,000 feet - climbing the first 60k without fuel was supposed to save a lot of fuel. I don't think much came of it. Possibly because the complexities of doing so far outweighed any savings in fuel.
-
Friday 4th October 2019 09:43 GMT Korev
The UK is dead keen to lure Virgin Orbit and its converted Boeing 747 spacecraft launcher, Cosmic Girl, from their current US base to Newquay Airport in Cornwall (formerly RAF St Mawgan and proud owners of one of the widest runways in Britain).
RAF St Mawgan is still there, it's just not a flying base anymore. It's probably quite a sneaky move for the RAF to pass on the costs of running the runways etc. to the civilian world and keep using it. If they ever need to rebuild the RAF then presumably they could reoccupy the base.
It's been a while since the RAF / US Navy had some of these at St Mawgan -->
Biting the hand that feeds IT
