Ian Mitko March 16, 2013 12:10 AM So if the control of the shuttle isn't perfect it will hit the fuselage, vertical stabilizer, or horizontal stabilizer? Remember how the SR-71 crashed releasing the drone and it didn't have a vertical stabilizer in the center or a horizontal stabilizer. This is profoundly stupid as white knight 2, stratolaunch, and other concepts do the same thing dropping the vehicle and rocket from the Bottom..... Remember the B-52 dropping the X-1 and x-15s. That was way ahead of this.... Slowburn March 16, 2013 02:27 AM I like it but I think you could get more altitude out of the mothership. However the fact the A300 is already certified for zero gravity parabolic flights suggests that they won't be flying straight and level when launching the shuttle. re; Mitko IanNASA launched the Space Shuttle Enterprise off the back of a 747 repeatedly without incident. Also the cost of designing, building, and certifying a plane so the shuttle could be unnecessarily dropped from underneath would be staggering. Joel Detrow March 16, 2013 05:04 AM I've known for years that this makes so much more sense than shooting a rocket directly from the ground, but apparently it's taken this long to realize that. Gildas Dubois March 16, 2013 02:56 PM It needs a different design and be dropped. Slowburn March 16, 2013 06:39 PM Mike I should have added that the SR-71 tried to launch the drone at speeds over Mock 2. The shock waves bounced the drone around like a rock in a clothes dryer until it knocked the tails of the mothership. Last time I looked the A300 is a subsonic airplane. sunfly March 16, 2013 11:15 PM This is an improvement over Virgin's design. My only question is can White Knight II or similar vehicle from other companies lift this new ship? Slowburn March 17, 2013 04:28 AM re; sunflyWeight wise probably but this shuttle lacks the hardpoints to be mounted underneath. Besides being dropped from underneath means that the mothership is in the way and you have to waste energy letting it get out of the way. korolexa March 17, 2013 02:33 PM Virgin with its LauncherOne will be the first by 2016 with the same usful mass of 250kg and price under $10m http://www.virgingalactic.com/launcherOne/performance-and-specification/http://www.gizmag.com/virgin-galactic-launcher-one/23276/moreover S3 has to develop their own shuttle ... Bob March 17, 2013 04:27 PM I'm curious why the airliner is only taken to 32,808 feet when many are capable of going to 50,000 feet with a full load. With some modifications that altitude could be increased somewhat. I am also wondering about the problems with a piggy back launch of the shuttle and its proximity to the vertical part of the tail. The pictures above look more like a pipe dream to interest investors than a viable plan. I also suspect that the satellite with the attached rocket will drop from the bottom of the shuttle rather than the top. It also makes no sense to build and launch from a spaceport anywhere away from the equator where the added velocity of the earth's spin could be used to its greatest advantage. christopher March 18, 2013 12:59 AM Wow - $10M to $50M for a satellite launch? Australians are paying $2000M ($2bn) for two of these (for NBN) - somebody is making a really nice commission on that!