Stratolaunch

[Orionblamblam]

In a way, I'm a little surprised they went with solid propellent. I know, it's MUCH less complicated than liquid fuel but the weight penalty. . .

It makes a great deal of sense to go with a solid rocket.

For starters, solids are easier to deal with operationally than liquids. A setup like this is going to be complex enough; liquids hold the potential for destroying the whole vehicle with a simple leak. Plus solids are easier to develop (usually). Thus a solid gets you up sooner, easier.

As you point out, solids are heavier. In this case, that's a *bonus.* In aerospace almost nothing comes in on weight and with the promised performance. So if they get close with the solids, then they have a lot of margin.

So... if they make a go of it with a solid, then:
1) They already have flight experience, which makes going to a liquid upper stage easier
2) Since they're used to hauling around a needlessly massive booster than can *just* put up a useful payload... a new liquid booster not only becomes an easier prospect, the potential for greatly improved payload performance exists.

 

[Hobbes]

As you point out, solids are heavier. In this case, that's a *bonus.* In aerospace almost nothing comes in on weight and with the promised performance. So if they get close with the solids, then they have a lot of margin.

Explain to me how a heavy booster that ends up being heavier than designed could increase their weight margin?

 

[sferrin]

As you point out, solids are heavier. In this case, that's a *bonus.* In aerospace almost nothing comes in on weight and with the promised performance. So if they get close with the solids, then they have a lot of margin.

Explain to me how a heavy booster that ends up being heavier than designed could increase their weight margin?

That's not what he said.

 

[Hobbes]

How else could I parse "In aerospace almost nothing comes in on weight and with the promised performance"?

That's why I'm asking for clarification.

 

[sferrin]

How else could I parse "In aerospace almost nothing comes in on weight and with the promised performance"?

That's why I'm asking for clarification.

He's saying if they come in okay with solid motors that leaves weight margin for if they decide they want to go with liquids down the road.

 

[Orionblamblam]

He's saying if they come in okay with solid motors that leaves weight margin for if they decide they want to go with liquids down the road.

Indeed so.

Look... if you're a modern aerospace engineer, trained up in the ways of razor-thin margins and overpromising, and your customer comes to you and says "I want a payload of 13,000 kg," you design for 13,000 kg. If you do your best and you come up short... you're in trouble. If you design to use a heavier system like solids and you come up short, you might be able to save your bacon by going to liquids. If you design for solids and actually squeak by, then by going to liquids you have an automatic performance improvement.

In other words: if you design for solids, you can always improve your performance by going to liquids. If you design for liquids, you have *already* designed for the best that can be done. If you come up short, there's not a whole lot you can do.

 

[flanker]

And then there was none...

Its strategy has already undergone several changes, and right now what will be strapped under that huge wing is not clear. Originally, SpaceX was to provide the booster rocket; Vulcan then switched to relying on rocket-maker Orbital ATK.
As recently as last fall, Beames spoke about a plan to put a human-crewed spacecraft developed by Sierra Nevada on the tip of the Orbital booster rocket.
But now that human spaceflight plan is shelved, along with Orbital’s planned rocket.
Beames said Orbital’s rocket “was not hitting the economic sweet spot to generate revenue,” so Vulcan has reopened the design plan and is “evaluating over 70 different launch vehicle variants.”
This shift won’t affect the timetable for flying the carrier plane, he said, but it could mean “maybe a little delay” in the plans to use it to launch spacecraft into orbit.

Source; http://www.seattletimes.com/business/boeing-aerospace/space-wa2/

First SpaceX pulled out, now Orbital-ATK.

 

[RanulfC]

And then there was none...

Its strategy has already undergone several changes, and right now what will be strapped under that huge wing is not clear. Originally, SpaceX was to provide the booster rocket; Vulcan then switched to relying on rocket-maker Orbital ATK.
As recently as last fall, Beames spoke about a plan to put a human-crewed spacecraft developed by Sierra Nevada on the tip of the Orbital booster rocket.
But now that human spaceflight plan is shelved, along with Orbital’s planned rocket.
Beames said Orbital’s rocket “was not hitting the economic sweet spot to generate revenue,” so Vulcan has reopened the design plan and is “evaluating over 70 different launch vehicle variants.”
This shift won’t affect the timetable for flying the carrier plane, he said, but it could mean “maybe a little delay” in the plans to use it to launch spacecraft into orbit.

Source; http://www.seattletimes.com/business/boeing-aerospace/space-wa2/

First SpaceX pulled out, now Orbital-ATK.

I read it as SL decided to not pursue the Orbital all-solid LV which make sense since it would neither be inexpensive nor very capable of reaching the targeted payload-to-orbit.


Key statement I thought was:
"The premise for all three companies is that launch vehicles must be reusable so getting to space becomes dramatically cheaper"


Which right there leaves out Orbital's design as none of it was reusable. The fact they are going back over 70 designs (which I seem to recall is more than they initially looked into) will hopefully lead to a more development and operationally capable vehicle. The LV was always going to be the long-pole in the development and operations of the concept. I just hope this will be open enough to get away from the idea of a self-lifting booster being a requirement. Probably not I suspect but there are a LOT of better ways to do it than has been suggested by the presentations so far.


Randy

 

[Orionblamblam]

My stab at a 3-view of the Stratolaunch system. From US Launch Vehicle Projects #2.

 

[flanker]

We are developing and fostering lots of different partnerships,” said Chuck Beames, president of Vulcan Aerospace and executive director of Stratolaunch Systems. “I would say that no company is ruled out right now.

Translation; we are completely alone. Plz, send help.

http://spacenews.com/stratolaunch-seeks-launch-partners-as-aircraft-nears-completion/

 

[Stargazer]

My stab at a 3-view of the Stratolaunch system. From US Launch Vehicle Projects #2.

Very nice work, Orionblamblam! Thanks for sharing.

 

[blackstar]

We are developing and fostering lots of different partnerships,” said Chuck Beames, president of Vulcan Aerospace and executive director of Stratolaunch Systems. “I would say that no company is ruled out right now.

Translation; we are completely alone. Plz, send help.

They have a horrible chicken and egg situation: they have neither chicken nor egg. How do you get customers when you don't have a rocket? And how do you fund a rocket if you don't have customers?

 

[blackstar]

Lots of articles about this subject right now. They all say essentially the same thing. Here are some links:

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/20/science/stratolaunchs-gargantuan-flying-launchpad-edges-toward-the-skies.html?_r=0

http://www.seattletimes.com/business/boeing-aerospace/paul-allens-giant-plane-takes-shape-in-the-desert-but-its-market-is-unclear/

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-space-paulallen-idUSKCN0Z6090

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-switch/wp/2016/06/20/why-paul-allen-is-building-the-worlds-largest-airplane/

 

[sferrin]

Darn. :'( If they ever fly it maybe it will help things but how long does it sit idle waiting for a custom rocket to be built?

 

[blackstar]

.

 

[Archibald]

very nice. So that is left of the 747 cockpit ? Damn, they really butchered it. Gone is the 747 hump !

 

[flateric]

...

 

[blackstar]

very nice. So that is left of the 747 cockpit ? Damn, they really butchered it. Gone is the 747 hump !

The fuselage is all new. They're using the engines, landing gear and some avionics from the 747s.

 

[sferrin]

http://www.spacedaily.com/reports/Orbital_ATK_and_Stratolaunch_Systems_Partner_tffer_Competitive_Space_Launch_Opportunities_999.html


Yo Dog. . .


Whoops. I'd mistakenly taken that to be a Spaceship 1, and it's launcher. Apparently it's an even less likely payload of THREE Pegasus XLs. Unless they have nukes on the front end I don't know why you'd be launching three of them at a time. (And if they were weapons you'd need a whole lot more than 1 airplane.)

 

[bobbymike]

http://www.spacedaily.com/reports/Orbital_ATK_and_Stratolaunch_Systems_Partner_tffer_Competitive_Space_Launch_Opportunities_999.html


Yo Dog. . .


Whoops. I'd mistakenly taken that to be a Spaceship 1, and it's launcher. Apparently it's an even less likely payload of THREE Pegasus XLs. Unless they have nukes on the front end I don't know why you'd be launching three of them at a time. (And if they were weapons you'd need a whole lot more than 1 airplane.)

You had me at nukes............. ;D

 

[Archibald]

As I said in another forum - Roc can carry 250 tons while a Pegasus is 24 tons, so do the math - they could carry and launch ten of them ! (this is tongue-in-cheek. Roc is ridiculously oversized and overexpensive for Pegasus.
My gut feeling about this ?
"Folks, the Roc, world most largest airplane, is nearly finished and will fly soon. But we 'll have no rocket in time, which is annoying since that bird was especially build to air launch a big rocket. What rockets are currently air launched we could use off the shelf ? only one, what, the Pegasus ? Right, so let's take the Pegasus and hang it below the Roc... "

 

[blackstar]

"Folks, the Roc, world most largest airplane, is nearly finished and will fly soon. But we 'll have no rocket in time, which is annoying since that bird was especially build to air launch a big rocket. What rockets are currently air launched we could use off the shelf ? only one, what, the Pegasus ? Right, so let's take the Pegasus and hang it below the Roc... "

This is a face-saving press announcement, as you note.

The Pegasus has launched about 42 times in 26 years. which works out to about one launch every year and a half (or two launches every three years). There clearly are not that many payloads demanding the Pegasus.

The guy who designed the Pegasus has posted a lot to the NSF group and explained why they built it and what they expected it to do, and also how far they were off in their expectations. He's been quite honest about it. They expected a huge smallsat market that never emerged.

 

[sferrin]

"Folks, the Roc, world most largest airplane, is nearly finished and will fly soon. But we 'll have no rocket in time, which is annoying since that bird was especially build to air launch a big rocket. What rockets are currently air launched we could use off the shelf ? only one, what, the Pegasus ? Right, so let's take the Pegasus and hang it below the Roc... "

This is a face-saving press announcement, as you note.

The Pegasus has launched about 42 times in 26 years. which works out to about one launch every year and a half (or two launches every three years). There clearly are not that many payloads demanding the Pegasus.

The guy who designed the Pegasus has posted a lot to the NSF group and explained why they built it and what they expected it to do, and also how far they were off in their expectations. He's been quite honest about it. They expected a huge smallsat market that never emerged.

Has he ever mentioned why it's never been proposed as a missile for the USAF? Seems like it would be a slam dunk.

 

[marauder2048]

The guy who designed the Pegasus has posted a lot to the NSF group and explained why they built it and what they expected it to do, and also how far they were off in their expectations. He's been quite honest about it. They expected a huge smallsat market that never emerged.

So is there a sweetspot for (US domestic) smallsat launchers? SpaceX didn't deem $9 - $11 million for 1000 - 2000 lbs to be viable.

My understanding is that for Pegasus the cost of operating the host vehicle, Stargazer, turned out to be much greater than anticipated.

 

[blackstar]

The guy who designed the Pegasus has posted a lot to the NSF group and explained why they built it and what they expected it to do, and also how far they were off in their expectations. He's been quite honest about it. They expected a huge smallsat market that never emerged.

So is there a sweetspot for (US domestic) smallsat launchers? SpaceX didn't deem $9 - $11 million for 1000 - 2000 lbs to be viable.

My understanding is that for Pegasus the cost of operating the host vehicle, Stargazer, turned out to be much greater than anticipated.

I'm blanking on the guy's name, but you can google it easily--hey! I just did that! Pegasus was designed by Dr. Antonio Elias. Anyway, he gave a great presentation at a big AIAA conference where he listed a number of key lessons learned, or "things you should not do" based upon their experience with Pegasus. I believe that one of them was that any air-launched vehicle should not require a dedicated launch vehicle that cannot perform any other mission or requires major modifications. The reason is that the rocket then has to carry the cost of the aircraft. That's a real cost hit for the program: that L-1011 sits on the ground most of the time, but you have to maintain it, you have to insure it, you have to pay pilots to fly it. Even if they are airline pilots, the L-1011 is now unique, so while they fly 777s for an airline, they have to maintain proficiency with the L-1011, so that costs money. Also, there are costs to the rocket itself because it has to be made "man-rated" because it is hanging under an airplane with people on it. That drives up the design and operational costs.

One of the things that is currently under development now is a towed glider aircraft for launching rockets. The logic of that is that a glider has no pilots and no major maintenance costs. So it does not cost a lot of money while sitting around not flying. And it is designed to be towed by a commercial Learjet that can otherwise go do useful things when not serving in an airlaunch capacity. And the rocket does not have to be "man-rated" because it never gets close to the piloted airplane. NASA is working on the concept, but is not actively developing it.

 

[Mike Pryce]

Rollout today:

http://stratolaunch.com/gallery.html

http://stratolaunch.com/news/FirstRollout.html

 

[TomS]

That's a lot of plane to launch a Pegasus XL (for now).

 

[sferrin]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=00FMMIaKYgE

 

[flateric]

https://www.facebook.com/ScaledComposites/photos/a.10150174314535658.304399.358436530657/10154780450350658/?type=3&theater

 

[Flyaway]

Air Force secretary hints at military space applications for Stratolaunch super-plane

https://www.geekwire.com/2017/air-force-secretary-highlights-military-space-applications-stratolaunch-super-airplane/

 

[blackstar]

Air Force secretary hints at military space applications for Stratolaunch super-plane

https://www.geekwire.com/2017/air-force-secretary-highlights-military-space-applications-stratolaunch-super-airplane/

"Today I had the chance to see firsthand how @Stratolaunch is developing an air-launch platform to make space more accessible"

Wait, that's it? That's the "hint"?

That's typical boilerplate language. It says nothing. It's neither negative nor an endorsement. She was being nice, that is all.

 

[Flyaway]

Engine test latest step for Stratolaunch’s giant aircraft

WASHINGTON — Stratolaunch announced Sept. 19 that the company has achieved another milestone in the development of a unique giant aircraft that will serve as a launch platform.

The company said that it successfully tested at its Mojave, California, facility the six Pratt & Whitney PW4056 turbofan jet engines that will power the aircraft. Each engine is capable of producing 56,750 pounds-force of thrust.

The engines came from two Boeing 747 jetliners that Stratolaunch acquired as part of the development of the one-of-its-kind plane. The engines, the company said in a statement, were put through a series of tests, including one where the engines were started one at a time and allowed to idle. “In these initial tests, each of the six engines operated as expected,” the company said.

http://spacenews.com/engine-test-latest-step-for-stratolaunchs-giant-aircraft/

 

[Foo Fighter]

This strikes me as an equivalent to the flying car that did not, went bust in the end. The emperors new cloth's is another euphemism.

 

[sferrin]

This strikes me as an equivalent to the flying car that did not, went bust in the end. The emperors new cloth's is another euphemism.

More like Hughes' "Spruce Goose". (Allen's "Composite Albatross"?) Time will tell though. Hopefully it works out.

 

[Silencer1]

No nose radomes and wing leading edges - seems, that aircraft requires further assembly.
We have a at least one commercially successful 6-engined prototype - Antonov An-225, so I hope to see Stratolaunch in action soon

 

[Hobbes]

Stratolaunch has been working on this for 6 years, and plan to put it into service in another 2. The Boeing 787 took 6 years from announcement to first flight, and 2 more years to finish flight testing. "Emperor's new clothes" is uncalled for.

 

[Mat Parry]

More like Hughes' "Spruce Goose". (Allen's "Composite Albatross"?) Time will tell though. Hopefully it works out.

I'd love it to be more like a Howard Hughes Glomar explorer deception.

Sadly I think we can be certain it's not

 

[Byeman]

This strikes me as an equivalent to the flying car that did not, went bust in the end. The emperors new cloth's is another euphemism.

More like Hughes' "Spruce Goose". (Allen's "Composite Albatross"?) Time will tell though. Hopefully it works out.

I heard the perfect name for it, "Deuce Goose"

 

[Orionblamblam]

I heard the perfect name for it, "Deuce Goose"

Better still: "Deus Goose."

 

[sferrin]

More like Hughes' "Spruce Goose". (Allen's "Composite Albatross"?) Time will tell though. Hopefully it works out.

I'd love it to be more like a Howard Hughes Glomar explorer deception.

Sadly I think we can be certain it's not

Maybe, like the B-52 / X-15, it could be a launch vehicle for testing things like these:





or maybe a test vehicle along the lines of this but for scramjets: