Stratolaunch

Byeman said:
Byeman said:
martinbayer said:
Byeman said:
martinbayer said:
abheiden said:
Just a simple pipe dream, start up the x33 venture star program again and launch it from the stratolaunch.
You can scale up the X33 startweight to 250 tons, so who nows it wil make it to orbit.
Click to expand...
The LM X-33 was an engineering abomination with a needlessly complicated non-cylindrical composite liquid hydrogen tank structure that ultimately tanked (pun fully intended) the concept. As I stated before in this forum, the Rockwell concept was the most logical and credible of the X-33 contenders, .
Click to expand...
Not true
Click to expand...
Taking into account the widely evidenced actual fact records as for example decribed at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_Martin_X-33, what exactly is your supporting documented evidence for your simpleton unsubstantiated bald-faced two word counter factual assertion?
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
My statement is just as valid and substantiated as yours that the "Rockwell concept was the most logical and credible".
Click to expand...
Do you mind if I ask you what your professional credentials are? I tried to look you up online, but "Byeman" appears to be just some kind of self-important CIA/NRO related pseudonym, at least according to Wikipedia, rather than your actual real name. My abridged CV can be found at https://www.linkedin.com/in/martinjbayer?trk=people-guest_people_search-card - where can I find yours to substantiate/validate your claim?
 
Last edited:
I have supported the either the prime and/or secondary payloads on the following shuttle missions:
while in the Air Force (1983-1992) 14
STS- 26, 27, 28, 29, 31, 32, 33, 36, 37, 38, 39, 44, 48 and 53

MDAC/Boeing on the Spacehab program (1992-2001) 16
STS-57, 60, 63, 76, 77, 79, 81, 84, 86, 89, 91, 96, 101, 106 & 107

The payloads on the following ELV launches:

while in the Air Force (1988-1992) 13
Titan 34D-2 and 16;
Titan-IV K-1, 4, 6, 10, 7, 9, 23;
Atlas I/II AC- 68, 69, 101, 103

With NASA (2001-Present) 24
Delta II ICESAT/CHIPSAT, MER A, MER B, Kepler, STSS Demo, & GRAIL.
Atlas V MRO, PNH, SDO, Juno, MSL, RBSP, MMS, OA-4, 6 & 7, GOES-R, S, & T, Solar Orbiter; Mars 2020;
Delta IV Heavy - EFT-1 & PSP.
Falcon 9 - DSCOVR; HALO/PPE; Europa Clipper
Ariane V - JWST.
Supported the launch of Jason/TIMED, Contour, MAP, TDRS-K, MAVEN, TDRS-L, OSIRIS-REX, TDRS-M, Jason-3, PSP, Lucy. 11

Also, worked OSP and CxP EELV studies and early X-37 integration.

And there is more than just supporting spacecraft ground ops or LV integration..
 
Last edited:
Do you find it a miracle that the Model 351 Roc is the first aircraft in history with a wingspan of over 300 feet to fly more than once, given that the H-4 Spruce Goose flew only once?
 
Vahe Demirjian said:
Do you find it a miracle that the Model 351 Roc is the first aircraft in history with a wingspan of over 300 feet to fly more than once, given that the H-4 Spruce Goose flew only once?
Click to expand...
As best as I can tell, there are absolutely *no* "miracles" whatsoever in this universe that we call our very own, only the more or less steady progress of science and engineering.
 
Last edited:
It's really just money. There's a lot of money flowing into hypersonics right now. So much money that it can even support otherwise questionable projects. When that money goes away, a lot of research will end, and Stratolaunch will end up grounded again.
 
I still don't understand why we need a 250 mt hypersonic testbed... what, it weights 2.5 mt ? 0.25 mt ? so why use Roc to launch it then ?
 
The Model 351 just got airborne for its third test flight. An aviation records book should say something about that Model 351 being the first airplane with a wingspan exceeding 300 feet to fly more than once.
 
Archibald said:
I still don't understand why we need a 250 mt hypersonic testbed... what, it weights 2.5 mt ? 0.25 mt ? so why use Roc to launch it then ?
Click to expand...

Talon A is 2.7 tons, for which Roc is clearly overkill. They propose to be able to launch three at a time, which would be an interesting test scenario, but not exactly one in high demand.

They've also got in mind the end state Talon Z, supposedly an orbital payload delivery platform. But then you're back to wondering how this is better that Virgin Orbit. Or, indeed, any number of low-cost launchers.
 
TomS said:
Archibald said:
I still don't understand why we need a 250 mt hypersonic testbed... what, it weights 2.5 mt ? 0.25 mt ? so why use Roc to launch it then ?
Click to expand...

Talon A is 2.7 tons, for which Roc is clearly overkill. They propose to be able to launch three at a time, which would be an interesting test scenario, but not exactly one in high demand.

They've also got in mind the end state Talon Z, supposedly an orbital payload delivery platform. But then you're back to wondering how this is better that Virgin Orbit. Or, indeed, any number of low-cost launchers.
Click to expand...
According to their website at https://www.stratolaunch.com/vehicles, Talon Z is only an intermediary development, while the actual culmination would be Black Ice, a fully reusable space plane that enables on-orbit capabilities and cargo return. Initial designs would be optimized for cargo launch, with a follow-on variant capable of transporting crew. Orbiter launch mass and mission profile would correspond to the Interim Hotol concept, see http://www.astronautix.com/i/interimhotol.html, and would make use of the full Roc capability. The intended advantage over other planned launch systems would be full reusability with hoped for significant cost reduction as well as crew and payload return capability.
 
Last edited:
martinbayer said:
TomS said:
Archibald said:
I still don't understand why we need a 250 mt hypersonic testbed... what, it weights 2.5 mt ? 0.25 mt ? so why use Roc to launch it then ?
Click to expand...

Talon A is 2.7 tons, for which Roc is clearly overkill. They propose to be able to launch three at a time, which would be an interesting test scenario, but not exactly one in high demand.

They've also got in mind the end state Talon Z, supposedly an orbital payload delivery platform. But then you're back to wondering how this is better that Virgin Orbit. Or, indeed, any number of low-cost launchers.
Click to expand...
According to their website at https://www.stratolaunch.com/vehicles, Talon Z is only an intermediary development, while the actual culmination would be Black Ice, a fully reusable space plane that enables on-orbit capabilities and cargo return. Initial designs would be optimized for cargo launch, with a follow-on variant capable of transporting crew. Orbiter launch mass and mission profile would correspond to the Interim Hotol concept, see http://www.astronautix.com/i/interimhotol.html, and would make use of the full Roc capability.
Click to expand...

I thought Black Ice was dead. I mean, it is for all practical purposes, but I thought they had admitted it.
 
TomS said:
martinbayer said:
TomS said:
Archibald said:
I still don't understand why we need a 250 mt hypersonic testbed... what, it weights 2.5 mt ? 0.25 mt ? so why use Roc to launch it then ?
Click to expand...

Talon A is 2.7 tons, for which Roc is clearly overkill. They propose to be able to launch three at a time, which would be an interesting test scenario, but not exactly one in high demand.

They've also got in mind the end state Talon Z, supposedly an orbital payload delivery platform. But then you're back to wondering how this is better that Virgin Orbit. Or, indeed, any number of low-cost launchers.
Click to expand...
According to their website at https://www.stratolaunch.com/vehicles, Talon Z is only an intermediary development, while the actual culmination would be Black Ice, a fully reusable space plane that enables on-orbit capabilities and cargo return. Initial designs would be optimized for cargo launch, with a follow-on variant capable of transporting crew. Orbiter launch mass and mission profile would correspond to the Interim Hotol concept, see http://www.astronautix.com/i/interimhotol.html, and would make use of the full Roc capability.
Click to expand...

I thought Black Ice was dead. I mean, it is for all practical purposes, but I thought they had admitted it.
Click to expand...
Doesn't look like it, at least officially. Personally, I think the Talon designs are only marginally more likely to actually materialize.
 
Thank you all. Like Interim HOTOL, if they go the classic "all rocket LH2" way, mass fraction will remain as difficult as usual. Roc like all other subsonic platform is not enough to make a serious "dent" into ascent to orbit delta-v... 9400 m/s plus the logarithm, the usual hassle.

Shame they don't use a Sabre engine to Mach 5.5, plus the little help brought by Roc...
 
Archibald said:
Thank you all. Like Interim HOTOL, if they go the classic "all rocket LH2" way, mass fraction will remain as difficult as usual. Roc like all other subsonic platform is not enough to make a serious "dent" into ascent to orbit delta-v... 9400 m/s plus the logarithm, the usual hassle.

Shame they don't use a Sabre engine to Mach 5.5, plus the little help brought by Roc...
Click to expand...
So a scaled down Skylon then. Why not, once the SABRE has actually been successfully flight tested.
 
I hope that there is more in their business model than attemping to build hypersonic planes to justify for their core asset...

They should go full frontal with Antonov carriers and alikes, advertising their lower time in loading, unloading and packaging operations.
 
martinbayer said:
Archibald said:
Thank you all. Like Interim HOTOL, if they go the classic "all rocket LH2" way, mass fraction will remain as difficult as usual. Roc like all other subsonic platform is not enough to make a serious "dent" into ascent to orbit delta-v... 9400 m/s plus the logarithm, the usual hassle.

Shame they don't use a Sabre engine to Mach 5.5, plus the little help brought by Roc...
Click to expand...
So a scaled down Skylon then. Why not, once the SABRE has actually been successfully flight tested.
Click to expand...

When you think about it Skylon is not that much heavier than 250 mt... depends from the variant, from memory C1 was 275 mt and the next iteration well over 300 tons, think 325 mt.

But GE90s are available, and there is room aplenty under than 300 ft span...

Wait, hanging a 0.80-scale Skylon below a Stratolaunch ?

Hell of an idea, I can see some advantages:
- lighter undercarriage - for landing only
- Skylon would be noisy as hell (140 db or worse) but Roc has 747 engines so it can only be better...
- plus a little airbreathing boost on top of Mach 5.5

Any help is welcome, when discussing SSTOs...

Or just use Roc to ferry empty Skylons from place to place, Shuttle-SCA style.

That would make one hell of Gerry Anderson / Thunderbirds like combination.

Skyroc ? Stratolon ? ROTFL
 
martinbayer said:
Do you mind if I ask you what your professional credentials are? I tried to look you up online, but "Byeman" appears to be just some kind of self-important CIA/NRO related pseudonym, at least according to Wikipedia, rather than your actual real name. My abridged CV can be found at https://www.linkedin.com/in/martinjbayer?trk=people-guest_people_search-card - where can I find yours to substantiate/validate your claim?
Click to expand...
I have responded in two different threads
 
Byeman said:
martinbayer said:
Do you mind if I ask you what your professional credentials are? I tried to look you up online, but "Byeman" appears to be just some kind of self-important CIA/NRO related pseudonym, at least according to Wikipedia, rather than your actual real name. My abridged CV can be found at https://www.linkedin.com/in/martinjbayer?trk=people-guest_people_search-card - where can I find yours to substantiate/validate your claim?
Click to expand...
I have responded in two different threads
Click to expand...
Thanks - looks like you have an impressive background in payload integration, which is however way downstream and besides conceptual and configurational launch vehicle design.
 
martinbayer said:
Byeman said:
martinbayer said:
Do you mind if I ask you what your professional credentials are? I tried to look you up online, but "Byeman" appears to be just some kind of self-important CIA/NRO related pseudonym, at least according to Wikipedia, rather than your actual real name. My abridged CV can be found at https://www.linkedin.com/in/martinjbayer?trk=people-guest_people_search-card - where can I find yours to substantiate/validate your claim?board
Click to expand...
I have responded in two different threads
Click to expand...
Thanks - looks like you have an impressive background in payload integration, which is however way downstream and besides conceptual and configurational launch vehicle design.
Click to expand...
I was on the STAS source board
 
Byeman said:
martinbayer said:
Byeman said:
martinbayer said:
Do you mind if I ask you what your professional credentials are? I tried to look you up online, but "Byeman" appears to be just some kind of self-important CIA/NRO related pseudonym, at least according to Wikipedia, rather than your actual real name. My abridged CV can be found at https://www.linkedin.com/in/martinjbayer?trk=people-guest_people_search-card - where can I find yours to substantiate/validate your claim?board
Click to expand...
I have responded in two different threads
Click to expand...
Thanks - looks like you have an impressive background in payload integration, which is however way downstream and besides conceptual and configurational launch vehicle design.
Click to expand...
I was on the STAS source board
Click to expand...
Representing payload aspects? Architecture studies typically don't focus on design optimization decisions though, but on higher level, more abstract system characteristics and considerations.
 
Last edited:
martinbayer said:
Byeman said:
martinbayer said:
Byeman said:
martinbayer said:
Do you mind if I ask you what your professional credentials are? I tried to look you up online, but "Byeman" appears to be just some kind of self-important CIA/NRO related pseudonym, at least according to Wikipedia, rather than your actual real name. My abridged CV can be found at https://www.linkedin.com/in/martinjbayer?trk=people-guest_people_search-card - where can I find yours to substantiate/validate your claim?board
Click to expand...
I have responded in two different threads
Click to expand...
Thanks - looks like you have an impressive background in payload integration, which is however way downstream and besides conceptual and configurational launch vehicle design.
Click to expand...
I was on the STAS source board
Click to expand...
Representing payload aspects? Architecture studies typically don't focus on design optimization decisions though, but on higher level, more abstract system characteristics and considerations.
Click to expand...
No, vehicle configurations
 
TomcatViP said:
I hope that there is more in their business model than attemping to build hypersonic planes to justify for their core asset...

They should go full frontal with Antonov carriers and alikes, advertising their lower time in loading, unloading and packaging operations.
Click to expand...
And what about competing for KC-Y?
Aside of dual refueling points for large aircraft and fighters, an optional stealth refueller airlaunched as an escort tanker airframe and then dragged (tethered) on the way back home?
Try to imagine how easy it would be to coordinate b/w penetrating bombers and escort with a single tanker able to follow the force from conus and back.
Sci-fi?
 
can something like this carry couple of boost phase interceptor for ballistic missile defense? basically you start putting them on the air the moment politics get heated, providing a tool for nuclear escalation but still fall under defensive measure
 
Last edited:

Similar threads

Please donate to support the forum.

Back
Top Bottom