I was going to post this. The issue I have with the concept is that the delta in velocity is not that much. This plane will fly, at best, 600MPH. Orbit is 18,000. Now I am going to assume that you do gain some benefits in getting over the air resulting in less drag and that the fuel needed to overcome the inertia of starting at 0 is non-trivial. But even the Pegasus was a commercial flop and they were aiming for an under served market segment willing to pay just about anything to get to orbit. When, not if WHEN, SpaceX can launch, recover, refurb and relaunch their first stages in less than 60 days, the economics of this plane will collapse. What I see happening? Mount a telescope on that center pylon and fly to 70,000 feet. Sort of like SOFIA With the better engines and flight profile it has to be cheaper than flying a 747 with a giant hole in the side of its fuselage.
I really doubt it. This thing has to have significantly more dry mass than a 747, and it's got two extra engines burning fuel. Plus, that telescope is going to cause a bunch of drag no matter where you put it....it has to be cheaper than flying a 747 with a giant hole in the side of its fuselage.
Oh, shit there is only one of those. No wonder it takes 8 months to get to use it. Could have sworn there were two. This plane looks amazing and is going to look awesome in the sky. But, and I think we both are on the same page here, it is a solution looking for a problem and a customer base. the more I think about it, I'm going to be shocked if this plane is in the air more than 2-3 years. Maybe they use it for airshow flyovers etc., but space launcher? By the time they get this up and running Bezos will have people on his rocket and Musk will be reusing his boosters.