Stratolaunch

Flyaway

Flyaway

ACCESS: USAP
Senior Member
Joined
21 January 2015
Messages
12,074
Reaction score
16,139
I want to see what they will do with the big bird. Hopefully it is not a caretaking / mothballing team... I want this thing to become a fire bomber (in your face, Evergreen 747) or a NASA high altitude astronomy platform (in your face SOFIA, who needs 747s, really ?)
 
Archibald said:
I want to see what they will do with the big bird. Hopefully it is not a caretaking / mothballing team... I want this thing to become a fire bomber (in your face, Evergreen 747) or a NASA high altitude astronomy platform (in your face SOFIA, who needs 747s, really ?)
Click to expand...

I like the sound of the NASA high altitude astronomy platform. Though instead of replacing SOFIA I would imagine it working in a different wavelength altogether so they do not compete with each other.
 
Yeah my reference to SOFIA was rather tongue-in-cheek.
What I had in mind was the ER-2, were sensors on pallets are swapped according to the daily or weekly mission. Also the CV-990s used for Spacelab, the Learjets carrying small telescopes, and so many others platforms. NASA has a knack for that.

The Roc aircraft could do the same but on a huge scale. Build a huge pressurized pod and cling that under the central wing. Then into that pod put science instruments that can be swapped according to the mission. The usual business: above 18 000 ft the thick of the atmosphere is below you. At 45 000 ft, perhaps 80% of it. Imagine, when they stuffed a 2.7 m IR telescope into a 747-SP, they had to cut a huge window into the rear fuselage side. Compared to that, building a pod mostly independant from Stratolaunch own structure might be a little easier. You could build the pod from the beginning with a huge hole for the telescope - unlike a 747-SP fuselage which was not exactly designed by Boeing with such idea in mind.
 
Archibald said:
Yeah my reference to SOFIA was rather tongue-in-cheek.
What I had in mind was the ER-2, were sensors on pallets are swapped according to the daily or weekly mission. Also the CV-990s used for Spacelab, the Learjets carrying small telescopes, and so many others platforms. NASA has a knack for that.

The Roc aircraft could do the same but on a huge scale. Build a huge pressurized pod and cling that under the central wing. Then into that pod put science instruments that can be swapped according to the mission. The usual business: above 18 000 ft the thick of the atmosphere is below you. At 45 000 ft, perhaps 80% of it. Imagine, when they stuffed a 2.7 m IR telescope into a 747-SP, they had to cut a huge window into the rear fuselage side. Compared to that, building a pod mostly independant from Stratolaunch own structure might be a little easier. You could build the pod from the beginning with a huge hole for the telescope - unlike a 747-SP fuselage which was not exactly designed by Boeing with such idea in mind.
Click to expand...

Didn't they study using a pod for various purposes along the way? I seem to recall "large, outsized cargo" but there was mention of other pods for other uses... OH DEAR LORD IT'S THUNDERBIRD 2!

Randy
 
Archibald said:
Yeah my reference to SOFIA was rather tongue-in-cheek.
What I had in mind was the ER-2, were sensors on pallets are swapped according to the daily or weekly mission. Also the CV-990s used for Spacelab, the Learjets carrying small telescopes, and so many others platforms. NASA has a knack for that.

The Roc aircraft could do the same but on a huge scale. Build a huge pressurized pod and cling that under the central wing. Then into that pod put science instruments that can be swapped according to the mission. The usual business: above 18 000 ft the thick of the atmosphere is below you. At 45 000 ft, perhaps 80% of it. Imagine, when they stuffed a 2.7 m IR telescope into a 747-SP, they had to cut a huge window into the rear fuselage side. Compared to that, building a pod mostly independant from Stratolaunch own structure might be a little easier. You could build the pod from the beginning with a huge hole for the telescope - unlike a 747-SP fuselage which was not exactly designed by Boeing with such idea in mind.
Click to expand...

Unworkable. The wing and fuselage would block the field of view. Need a low wing aircraft.
 
Byeman said:
Archibald said:
Yeah my reference to SOFIA was rather tongue-in-cheek.
What I had in mind was the ER-2, were sensors on pallets are swapped according to the daily or weekly mission. Also the CV-990s used for Spacelab, the Learjets carrying small telescopes, and so many others platforms. NASA has a knack for that.

The Roc aircraft could do the same but on a huge scale. Build a huge pressurized pod and cling that under the central wing. Then into that pod put science instruments that can be swapped according to the mission. The usual business: above 18 000 ft the thick of the atmosphere is below you. At 45 000 ft, perhaps 80% of it. Imagine, when they stuffed a 2.7 m IR telescope into a 747-SP, they had to cut a huge window into the rear fuselage side. Compared to that, building a pod mostly independant from Stratolaunch own structure might be a little easier. You could build the pod from the beginning with a huge hole for the telescope - unlike a 747-SP fuselage which was not exactly designed by Boeing with such idea in mind.
Click to expand...

Unworkable. The wing and fuselage would block the field of view. Need a low wing aircraft.
Click to expand...

Wouldn't or couldn't the pod extend forward and aft of the wing for a clear view?

Randy
 
sferrin said:
You still have the fuselages to the sides.
Click to expand...

Not to the rear and front though so you 'field of view' is actually more open. Less a 'hatch' in the side of the pod but more an proper observatory turret fore and aft, (or just one) which you can adjust to sight along the open lanes. You may have to fly "towards" or "away" but your field of view would be the same if not better.

Randy
 
Ok need some mod help here but I was trying to link back to the old thread to link to the Dan DeLong, Teledyne Brown Air Launch To Orbit Spaceplane Concept but no go. (Tried the NSF and Selenian Boondocks link but that seems dead as well :( )

In essence I'm wondering, (which is why I'm trying to do the BoTE) how the BE3/4 and/or Raptor would do in place of the SSME? The RL10 is supposed to be pretty straight forward to convert to methalox so ...

RAndy
Edit: Found the NSF link at: https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=27520.msg1811704#msg1811704
I'll try to attach it here
 

Attachments

  • tbe_presentation.pdf
    1.2 MB · Views: 13
Last edited:
sferrin said:
You still have the fuselages to the sides.
Click to expand...

If it's an astronomical telescope, having a central pod extending somewhat aft of the trailing edge with the tail cut off at a slant leaving a big upwards-exposed hole for the telescope to look up and out from would seema good solution. The airflow environent would seem to be - or at least could be made to be - fairly benign, and the view upwards would be quite clear. Simply point the tail of the aircraft at the target in the sky and fly "away" from it, and the scope could stare at the target probably longer than the fuel supply would allow.
 
RanulfC said:
Ok need some mod help here but I was trying to link back to the old thread to link to the Dan DeLong, Teledyne Brown Air Launch To Orbit Spaceplane Concept but no go. (Tried the NSF and Selenian Boondocks link but that seems dead as well :( )

In essence I'm wondering, (which is why I'm trying to do the BoTE) how the BE3/4 and/or Raptor would do in place of the SSME? The RL10 is supposed to be pretty straight forward to convert to methalox so ...

RAndy
Edit: Found the NSF link at: https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=27520.msg1811704#msg1811704
I'll try to attach it here
Click to expand...

That study is fascinating, and so is the paper. The detailed weight breakdowns of the vehicle and Shuttle orbiter particularly. I used it as a template for my suborbital refueling rocketplane.
 
Last edited:
Archibald said:
RanulfC said:
Ok need some mod help here but I was trying to link back to the old thread to link to the Dan DeLong, Teledyne Brown Air Launch To Orbit Spaceplane Concept but no go. (Tried the NSF and Selenian Boondocks link but that seems dead as well :( )

In essence I'm wondering, (which is why I'm trying to do the BoTE) how the BE3/4 and/or Raptor would do in place of the SSME? The RL10 is supposed to be pretty straight forward to convert to methalox so ...

RAndy
Edit: Found the NSF link at: https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=27520.msg1811704#msg1811704
I'll try to attach it here
Click to expand...

That study is fascinating, and so is the paper. The detailed weight breakdowns of the vehicle and Shuttle orbiter particularly. I used it as a template for my suborbital refueling rocketplane.
Click to expand...
Hello Archibald,

It's good to see that you finally seem to be opening up to entertaining the possibility of a subsonically air launched winged reusable launch vehicle with cryogenic rocket propulsion after all... ;)

Martin
 
Last edited:
Air launch is excellent (1100 m/s gain if done properly) but suborbital refueling leave it in the dust, performance-wise. Because it doesn't hit at the extremities ( at the beginning) of the ascent delta-v to Earth orbit, 9 km/s. It punches it right in the guts, at 6 km/s. That's the moment when the exponential aspect of the rocket equation becomes a real, giant PITA. The propellant mass fraction rise smoothly up to 0.85 and 6 km/s.
Then on the last percents - going from 0.85 to 0.95 and 9 km/s it just... skyrockets, pretty brutally.

IF Earth was somewhere in size between Mars (too small) and Venus (smaller, but not enough smaller) chemical propulsion and SSTO would have a far easier time...
 
Last edited:
Archibald said:
Air launch is excellent (1100 m/s gain if done properly) but suborbital refueling leave it in the dust, performance-wise. Because it doesn't hit at the extremities ( at the beginning) of the ascent delta-v to Earth orbit, 9 km/s. It punches it right in the guts, at 6 km/s. That's the moment when the exponential aspect of the rocket equation becomes a real, giant PITA. The propellant mass fraction rise smoothly up to 0.85 and 6 km/s.
Then on the last percents - going from 0.85 to 0.95 and 9 km/s it just... skyrockets, pretty brutally.

IF Earth was somewhere in size between Mars (too small) and Venus (smaller, but not enough smaller) chemical propulsion and SSTO would have a far easier time...
Click to expand...
If I understand you correctly, how is refueling at 6 km/s accomplished? Leaving the rendezvous and coupling mechanics aside, that would require a rather large dedicated tanker in addition to the orbiter. Considering that that tanker would need, well, copious tankage, propulsion, flight systems, propellant transfer equipment, and (assuming reusability) presumably some sort of landing equipment, I severely doubt that vehicle combo would be any more reliable and cost effective overall than a straight up parallel TSTO with continuous crossfeed, but I'm curious what your (comparative?) analysis based on the TBE spaceplane looks like that drives you to postulating such an exotic solution.
 
Last edited:
Archibald said:
Air launch is excellent (1100 m/s gain if done properly) but suborbital refueling leave it in the dust, performance-wise. Because it doesn't hit at the extremities ( at the beginning) of the ascent delta-v to Earth orbit, 9 km/s. It punches it right in the guts, at 6 km/s. That's the moment when the exponential aspect of the rocket equation becomes a real, giant PITA. The propellant mass fraction rise smoothly up to 0.85 and 6 km/s.
Then on the last percents - going from 0.85 to 0.95 and 9 km/s it just... skyrockets, pretty brutally.
Click to expand...

steelpillow said:
Worth starting a spin-off thread?
Click to expand...

Technically? :)

martinbayer said:
If I understand you correctly, how is refueling at 6 km/s accomplished? Leaving the rendezvous and coupling mechanics aside, that would require a rather large dedicated tanker in addition to the orbiter. Considering that that tanker would need, well, copious tankage, propulsion, flight systems, propellant transfer equipment, and (assuming reusability) presumably some sort of landing equipment, I severely doubt that vehicle combo would be any more reliable and cost effective overall than a straight up parallel TSTO with continuous crossfeed, but I'm curious what your (comparative?) analysis based on the TBE spaceplane looks like that drives you to postulating such an exotic solution.
Click to expand...

In context you'd need one or two more "Roc's" to make it happen in any case, which presents it's own issues :)

Archibald said:
IF Earth was somewhere in size between Mars (too small) and Venus (smaller, but not enough smaller) chemical propulsion and SSTO would have a far easier time...
Click to expand...

Whiners... "The planet's too big, it's too small, it's to hot, it's too cold" Yeesh...

Randy
 
LMAO. Martin: the crux of the matter is that the amount of oxidizer to be transfered is not huge, in the 20 000 to 80 000 pound range. The system works better with unbalanced O/F ratios - keroxide is 7, hydrolox is 6. Hydrogen peroxide can be done through bladders, very much like the USN refueling system (probe and drogue). LOX is harder because of ullage and cryogens. Needs a rigid system perhaps boom RDV. https://selenianboondocks.com/2009/11/boom-rendezvous-a-path-not-yet-taken/
 
Now under new ownership.

www.stratolaunch.com

Stratolaunch Transitions Ownership - Stratolaunch

Stratolaunch LLC has transitioned ownership and is continuing regular operations. Our near-term launch vehicle development strategy focuses on providing customizable, reusable, and affordable rocket-powered testbed vehicles and associated flight services. As we continue on our mission...
www.stratolaunch.com www.stratolaunch.com
 
Thanks to a poster on NSF for digging this article up:

www.geekwire.com

Stratolaunch air-launch venture says it’s been transferred to new owners by Paul Allen’s Vulcan

Stratolaunch, the company that was founded by the late Seattle billionaire Paul Allen in 2011 to build a flying launch pad for rockets, says it's under new ownership.
www.geekwire.com www.geekwire.com

Stratolaunch reported the ownership handover today on Twitter and its website, without saying who the new owner is. However, information gleaned from the grapevine at Mojave Air and Space Port, where Stratolaunch’s flight operations are based, suggests that private investors are playing a role.
Click to expand...
 
Flyaway said:
Thanks to a poster on NSF for digging this article up:

www.geekwire.com

Stratolaunch air-launch venture says it’s been transferred to new owners by Paul Allen’s Vulcan

Stratolaunch, the company that was founded by the late Seattle billionaire Paul Allen in 2011 to build a flying launch pad for rockets, says it's under new ownership.
www.geekwire.com www.geekwire.com

Stratolaunch reported the ownership handover today on Twitter and its website, without saying who the new owner is. However, information gleaned from the grapevine at Mojave Air and Space Port, where Stratolaunch’s flight operations are based, suggests that private investors are playing a role.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...

Private investors? Wonder who they are. I suppose that news will come out eventually.
 
Recent article about Stratolaunch's latest hypersonic plans

finance.yahoo.com

Stratolaunch resurrects its hypersonic rocket vehicle under a new name: Talon-A

Now that it's under new management, Stratolaunch is retooling a concept for a rocket-powered hypersonic vehicle that it first unveiled 18 months ago. Back then, it was called the Hyper-A testbed vehicle, and it represented one of the engineering frontiers for Microsoft co-founder Paul Allen's...
finance.yahoo.com finance.yahoo.com
 

Attachments

  • b026fdd409fd50b5fe5c6ebf9590f3d6.jpeg
    b026fdd409fd50b5fe5c6ebf9590f3d6.jpeg
    13.2 KB · Views: 40
  • talon-a-768x424.jpg
    talon-a-768x424.jpg
    44.4 KB · Views: 39
Except they weight 2700 kg when Stratolaunch can drop 250 000 kg. So they could carry 91 of them on a single flight, not three. :p
this of course is completely stupid, it just mean to say that Roc is grossly oversized for the job.
 
Whiners... "The planet's too big, it's too small, it's to hot, it's too cold" Yeesh...

Randy
Click to expand...

We have a whiner here (lame pun 1.0)

Would you like any cheese with this whine (lame pun 2.0, but I like this one).
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom