Author Topic: Stratolaunch: General Company and Development Updates and Discussions  (Read 1020782 times)

Offline Nomadd

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8839
  • Lower 48
  • Liked: 60430
  • Likes Given: 1305
What are current rates like for the air transport of cargo? I'm wondering about ways for the Stratolaunch carrier to make money when not being used for launch, a little like how the Zero-G aircraft gets used for cargo flights.
I was just thinking about that. This thing could haul a lot of payloads too large or heavy for any aircraft today. Say, they needed to transport 6 meter unfueled first stage cores. Or airliner fuselage sections. Or airlaunching anything the Air Force or NASA wants to air launch. You'd have to design it for those purposes to have cargo ground clearence to start, but they must be thinking of uses besides launching Falcon IVs for this beast.
Those who danced were thought to be quite insane by those who couldn't hear the music.

Offline Robotbeat

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 39270
  • Minnesota
  • Liked: 25240
  • Likes Given: 12115
I have a question: is this Stratolaunch carrier craft sized for future growth of the rocket diameter-wise? It seems to me as if it is.
Chris  Whoever loves correction loves knowledge, but he who hates reproof is stupid.

To the maximum extent practicable, the Federal Government shall plan missions to accommodate the space transportation services capabilities of United States commercial providers. US law http://goo.gl/YZYNt0

Offline baddux

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 141
  • Liked: 8
  • Likes Given: 0
Would it be impossible to attach wings and landing gear + some airbus or boeing jet engines to Falcon 9 (or Falcon 4/5) first stage? You would get reusable Falcon rocket that Elon desires and air lauch at the same time. If that's possible I'd like to see Paul Allen investing his money to that rather than Stratolaunch.

Offline Rocket Science

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10586
  • NASA Educator Astronaut Candidate Applicant 2002
  • Liked: 4548
  • Likes Given: 13523
Would it be impossible to attach wings and landing gear + some airbus or boeing jet engines to Falcon 9 (or Falcon 4/5) first stage? You would get reusable Falcon rocket that Elon desires and air lauch at the same time. If that's possible I'd like to see Paul Allen investing his money to that rather than Stratolaunch.
See link here:
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=27477.0
"The laws of physics are unforgiving"
~Rob: Physics instructor, Aviator

Offline go4mars

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3748
  • Earth
  • Liked: 158
  • Likes Given: 3463
Half a million pounds would be plenty to drop a large onshore oil rig with BIG parachutes into remote locations.  The market for that would be substantial.  Maybe not enough for one oil company to develop an aircraft like this, but if the service was available, with capital costs covered elsewhere, it would definately happen.  If the rig delivery costs were less than perhaps 10 million dollars, it would find customers.  Yes it would be a one way trip for the rig, but a there are a lot of land-based rigs out there and if you had a 5 or 10 well program in a local area, then it could make sense to leave the dumb metal behind and only strip higher value items.  Or leave it out there for a follow-on drilling program in the future.  Companies find another company with an adjacent lease and make a deal.  I know this to be true of Arctic drilling in Canada (yes ice-roads are occasionally possible but that is not the point).  I suspect it would find lots of use in remote jungles and such as well. 

Helicopters would extract extra drill-pipe or smallish bulldozers after operations are complete.        Not only would it save on the cost of roads, it would be environmentally friendly as roads wouldn't carve up pristine wilderness at the exploration phase as is done currently.  (Obviously discoveries would eventually lead to infrastructure like roads and pipelines, but most wells are unsuccessful).
« Last Edit: 12/16/2011 08:12 pm by go4mars »
Elasmotherium; hurlyburly Doggerlandic Jentilak steeds insouciantly gallop in viridescent taiga, eluding deluginal Burckle's abyssal excavation.

Offline hop

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3352
  • Liked: 553
  • Likes Given: 891
I have a question: is this Stratolaunch carrier craft sized for future growth of the rocket diameter-wise? It seems to me as if it is.
Doubt it. I'd expect the baseline booster to pretty much max out the payload of the aircraft. That's certainly the impression I got from the press conference. No need for a significantly bigger diameter booster unless they switch to LH2, which seems unlikely.

From the renderings, I don't really get the impression it's oversized, there's plenty of width but in the ground clearance looks fairly tight (though perhaps the attachment point on the wing could be more svelt.) In any case, it's probably not safe to assume the renderings reflect the actual design in great detail.

Offline Robotbeat

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 39270
  • Minnesota
  • Liked: 25240
  • Likes Given: 12115
I have a question: is this Stratolaunch carrier craft sized for future growth of the rocket diameter-wise? It seems to me as if it is.
Doubt it. I'd expect the baseline booster to pretty much max out the payload of the aircraft. That's certainly the impression I got from the press conference. No need for a significantly bigger diameter booster unless they switch to LH2, which seems unlikely.

From the renderings, I don't really get the impression it's oversized, there's plenty of width but in the ground clearance looks fairly tight (though perhaps the attachment point on the wing could be more svelt.) In any case, it's probably not safe to assume the renderings reflect the actual design in great detail.
I said diameter, not payload. And yes, I said that because it may allow a switch to hydrogen in the future.
Chris  Whoever loves correction loves knowledge, but he who hates reproof is stupid.

To the maximum extent practicable, the Federal Government shall plan missions to accommodate the space transportation services capabilities of United States commercial providers. US law http://goo.gl/YZYNt0

Offline baddux

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 141
  • Liked: 8
  • Likes Given: 0
Would it be impossible to attach wings and landing gear + some airbus or boeing jet engines to Falcon 9 (or Falcon 4/5) first stage? You would get reusable Falcon rocket that Elon desires and air lauch at the same time. If that's possible I'd like to see Paul Allen investing his money to that rather than Stratolaunch.
See link here:
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=27477.0

Yeah, cool pictures.

About what I was thinking of. Still it sounds better idea than just having a huge plane to carry a non-reusable rocket.

Offline RanulfC

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4595
  • Heus tu Omnis! Vigilate Hoc!
  • Liked: 900
  • Likes Given: 32
Would it be impossible to attach wings and landing gear + some airbus or boeing jet engines to Falcon 9 (or Falcon 4/5) first stage? You would get reusable Falcon rocket that Elon desires and air lauch at the same time. If that's possible I'd like to see Paul Allen investing his money to that rather than Stratolaunch.
Think of how much the F-9/5/4 stages would have to be re-built and beefed up to act like aircraft and how badly they'd then work as actual "rockets? You WANT a seperate carrier aircraft to "offload" all the extra equipment so you don't have to stack it on the rocket.

The jet-engines alone would probably wipe out all your "payload" and that's before you even begin to add recovery gear...

I could "wish" that Paul Allen had invested in AirLaunch but "he" thinks this is a "better" idea and it is, after all is said and done, HIS money :)

Randy
From The Amazing Catstronaut on the Black Arrow LV:
British physics, old chap. It's undignified to belch flames and effluvia all over the pad, what. A true gentlemen's orbital conveyance lifts itself into the air unostentatiously, with the minimum of spectacle and a modicum of grace. Not like our American cousins' launch vehicles, eh?

Offline RanulfC

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4595
  • Heus tu Omnis! Vigilate Hoc!
  • Liked: 900
  • Likes Given: 32
I have a question: is this Stratolaunch carrier craft sized for future growth of the rocket diameter-wise? It seems to me as if it is.
Doubt it. I'd expect the baseline booster to pretty much max out the payload of the aircraft. That's certainly the impression I got from the press conference. No need for a significantly bigger diameter booster unless they switch to LH2, which seems unlikely.

From the renderings, I don't really get the impression it's oversized, there's plenty of width but in the ground clearance looks fairly tight (though perhaps the attachment point on the wing could be more svelt.) In any case, it's probably not safe to assume the renderings reflect the actual design in great detail.
There is also the possibility of doing "upgrades" through the life of the airframe. Upgraded engines, say, some rebuilding of the wing-boxes for more payload mass, things like that.

Air-Launch usually "begs" for LOX/LH2 rockets since they are the most effective chemical combination, but there are other propellant choices too. LOX/Cryo-Propane would effectivly retain the same dimensions as an RP-1/LOX rocket with almost LH2/LOX isp, then there is Liquid Methane so there are a lot of possible "tweeks" to the system.

Randy
From The Amazing Catstronaut on the Black Arrow LV:
British physics, old chap. It's undignified to belch flames and effluvia all over the pad, what. A true gentlemen's orbital conveyance lifts itself into the air unostentatiously, with the minimum of spectacle and a modicum of grace. Not like our American cousins' launch vehicles, eh?

Offline Robotbeat

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 39270
  • Minnesota
  • Liked: 25240
  • Likes Given: 12115
LOx/cryo-propane has nearly the same Isp as LOx/Methane, NOT hydrolox! :)
Chris  Whoever loves correction loves knowledge, but he who hates reproof is stupid.

To the maximum extent practicable, the Federal Government shall plan missions to accommodate the space transportation services capabilities of United States commercial providers. US law http://goo.gl/YZYNt0

Offline go4mars

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3748
  • Earth
  • Liked: 158
  • Likes Given: 3463
Methane would be about 20% more volume than RP-1? 
I wonder if that could be enough difference to be a clue WRT the rendering length. We know dragon and trunk dimensions pretty well.  We know the likely diameter... 

Elasmotherium; hurlyburly Doggerlandic Jentilak steeds insouciantly gallop in viridescent taiga, eluding deluginal Burckle's abyssal excavation.

Offline Robotbeat

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 39270
  • Minnesota
  • Liked: 25240
  • Likes Given: 12115
Methane would be about 20% more volume than RP-1? 
I wonder if that could be enough difference to be a clue WRT the rendering length. We know dragon and trunk dimensions pretty well.  We know the likely diameter... 
Let's not get ahead of ourselves. We were just talking about possible FUTURE variations on this design. At the press conference and with the supporting material, we have every indication that they will be using RP-1/LOx. According to their current plans, they won't be using methane/LOx at least initially.
Chris  Whoever loves correction loves knowledge, but he who hates reproof is stupid.

To the maximum extent practicable, the Federal Government shall plan missions to accommodate the space transportation services capabilities of United States commercial providers. US law http://goo.gl/YZYNt0

Offline Norm38

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1696
  • Liked: 1272
  • Likes Given: 2317
Well you "kinda" answered your own question Norm38, as the "zoom" (pitch-up) IS required in one form or another to get the rocket to the proper gamma for release.

From the talk about solids and afterburners I had the impression the zoom was more about trying to gain speed than just getting the nose up.

Offline go4mars

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3748
  • Earth
  • Liked: 158
  • Likes Given: 3463
True.  And even if the staged combustion engine turns out to be methane, Paul Allen might like the flight history of Merlin engines by then more than a newer design.  Good baseline all around.  Paul Allen doesn't have to pay the risk or expense of a new program (new engine type, different fuel/procedure type, or rocket reusability).  Elon prefers it because as a contractor, he can supply expendables (extra cash and activity to keep assembly lines full) while he tries to build systems that out-compete this over the longer term.  A great hedge actually.  Win-win for both parties IMO. 

When Elon said 40 cores per year, 30 were for the FH.  I wonder if some of the 10 were anticipated to be for this.  I wonder how much it will cost to throw away Falcon 5's...
Elasmotherium; hurlyburly Doggerlandic Jentilak steeds insouciantly gallop in viridescent taiga, eluding deluginal Burckle's abyssal excavation.

Offline Lee Jay

  • Elite Veteran
  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8566
  • Liked: 3603
  • Likes Given: 327
Since you need to have a thrust to weight ratior of over 1.0 when performing the pitch-up manuver (to avoid stalling)...

No you don't.  You carry energy in the form of inertia.  This is why even gliders can do vertical maneuvers.
True, I just didn't want to get into that much detail :)

Vertical maneuvers bleed energy at a VERY fast rate that's why you don't see gliders performing "zoom-climb" manuevers ;)

Without a form of thrust capable of equaling the force of gravity you can't maintain the required angle for more than a few seconds before your wings stall. This is "worse" for a heavily loaded aircraft, especially at high altitude.

A few seconds is enough.  You release the rocket at the right point during the pitch-up.  As to time - see the Vomit Comet flight profile.

Quote
Ugh, now that I think of it the problem gets worse once you release the rocket! If you were using the rockets motors to both check them out and to provide the needed thrust for the "zoom" you lose that as soon as you release AND what lift you have it now pushing you to a HIGHER Angle-of-Attack!

I seriously doubt the idea of using the main rockets while attached to the plane.  So, when you release the rocket, things get way, way better because you keep the same thrust and lose half your mass.

Offline jimvela

  • Member
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1662
  • Liked: 900
  • Likes Given: 71
So, when you release the rocket, things get way, way better because you keep the same thrust and lose half your mass.

I actually think that phase is really hairy, because when you release the rocket, you have the same lift, and loose half your mass.  Think about that for a few minutes...

The airframe is going to see significant Gs in that period, and you don't easily change the lift that the aircraft is generating very quickly- particularly since the carrier aircraft will also be taking evasive actions to get out of the thrust centerline of the now-launched rocket.

Online HMXHMX

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1709
  • Liked: 2211
  • Likes Given: 662
So, when you release the rocket, things get way, way better because you keep the same thrust and lose half your mass.

I actually think that phase is really hairy, because when you release the rocket, you have the same lift, and loose half your mass.  Think about that for a few minutes...

The airframe is going to see significant Gs in that period, and you don't easily change the lift that the aircraft is generating very quickly- particularly since the carrier aircraft will also be taking evasive actions to get out of the thrust centerline of the now-launched rocket.

Ah, something I can actually comment upon!

In 2005 we flew belly drops from the 747, using the NASA 747 simulator at Ames.  We were dropping 209K lbm, or about the same payload to gross mass ratio of the system under debate.  The maneuver went extraordinarily smoothly, and could be flown even by low-time pilots.  Like me – I had six hours at the time. 

We also determined that clearing turns were not really required for air-launching, if you do it right.  There's a bunch of t/LAD papers out there that explain what "right" is.

Offline yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17266
  • Liked: 7123
  • Likes Given: 3064
A few promotional videos:




See the following link for other videos:
http://www.youtube.com/user/VulcanIncVideo?feature=watch
« Last Edit: 12/17/2011 03:14 am by yg1968 »

Offline go4mars

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3748
  • Earth
  • Liked: 158
  • Likes Given: 3463
I seriously doubt the idea of using the main rockets while attached to the plane.  So, when you release the rocket, things get way, way better because you keep the same thrust and lose half your mass.
So, when you release the rocket, things get way, way better because you keep the same thrust and lose half your mass.

In 2005 we flew belly drops from the 747, using the NASA 747 simulator at Ames.  We were dropping 209K lbm, or about the same payload to gross mass ratio of the system under debate.  The maneuver went extraordinarily smoothly, and could be flown even by low-time pilots.  Like me – I had six hours at the time. 

We also determined that clearing turns were not really required for air-launching, if you do it right.  There's a bunch of t/LAD papers out there that explain what "right" is.
(Aside: Cool!  Can you say what you were dropping?)

Can a 747 engine also run on RP-1? 

Would this be possible: 
1)  Fly to launch area with a fully fueled rocket, but the tank size ratio on stage 1 of the rocket is mostly oxygen, with small RP-1 tanks

2)  Mid-air-re-fuel of stratolauncher aircraft tanks with RP-1. 

3)  Fire the rocket, while pushing RP-1 into it from the stratolauncher.

4)  Let F5 loose at the highest and fastest point that stratolauncher could survive from (could it get pushed past the sound barrier without coming apart?  How high might it go?). 

5)  At the point stratolauncher lets go, there is a proper ratio of oxygen and RP-1 for the rest of its 1st stage burn, and the rocket might even shut off for a second or so while stratolauncher evades its plume. 

6)  F-5 does it's thing up to 2nd stage separation, while stratolauncher goes back to land at its base.   

This would make stratolauncher a pseudo-drop tank. 
« Last Edit: 12/17/2011 04:48 pm by go4mars »
Elasmotherium; hurlyburly Doggerlandic Jentilak steeds insouciantly gallop in viridescent taiga, eluding deluginal Burckle's abyssal excavation.

 

Advertisement NovaTech
Advertisement Northrop Grumman
Advertisement
Advertisement Margaritaville Beach Resort South Padre Island
Advertisement Brady Kenniston
Advertisement NextSpaceflight
Advertisement Nathan Barker Photography
1