It’s designed to launch a spacecraft-carrying rocket from high altitude, thereby saving considerable rocket fuel and money on each launch.
You do not really gain that much velocity from a airplane launch.
LEO requires about 17,000 mph. At best, that airplane is going 500 mph when it releases the rocket. Now you can also take advantage of the earth's rotation and prevailing winds to get higher speed, but you only get 5-6% of the required velocity.
Altitude of a LEO orbit is a minimum of 100 miles. IF the airplane is at 50,000 ft altitude (very generous assumption) that is less than 10 miles altitude.
The downsides are that the rocket is expendable, and more importantly, the rocket has to be able to take the side forces of takeoff, turbulence and potentially landing ( I think they have to be able to scrub a mission after take off and return to the hanger without launching if it is going to be commercially viable). This means greater strength and therefore greater mass for the rocket, partially negating the velocity and altitude advantages.
It’s designed to launch a spacecraft-carrying rocket from high altitude, thereby saving considerable rocket fuel and money on each launch.
—
I’m not doubting that it’s true, but I don’t understand it, and would like to.
It seems like you need X amount of energy to get Y amount of weight into orbit. My layman brain isn’t getting how flying partway alters that relationship.
Again I don’t doubt it’s true but I would like to read more details about HOW it’s true. And how much is really saved.