Stratolaunch: General Company and Development Updates and Discussions

[KSC Sage]

How about launching military payloads on missions that require the specific capabilities that air launch provides? That was the original speculation as for the usefulness of this vehicle. From the beginning, people have been saying this isn't about price but, now that SpaceX is out of the picture, it is?

I'm not sure how much flexibility there will be - won't the carrier aircraft be very limited to the number of airports that can support it?

Yes, that's true.  It'll need about 2.5 miles of runway for take off and will weigh over a million pounds fully loaded.  Depending on the rocket it carries it'll need at least a quarter mile radius clear zone when loading propellants.  Not many airports can handle all that.

[yg1968]

How about launching military payloads on missions that require the specific capabilities that air launch provides? That was the original speculation as for the usefulness of this vehicle. From the beginning, people have been saying this isn't about price but, now that SpaceX is out of the picture, it is?

I'm not sure how much flexibility there will be - won't the carrier aircraft be very limited to the number of airports that can support it?

Yes, that's true.  It'll need about 2.5 miles of runway for take off and will weigh over a million pounds fully loaded.  Depending on the rocket it carries it'll need at least a quarter mile radius clear zone when loading propellants.  Not many airports can handle all that.

How about spaceports? Couldn't spaceports be adapted for Stratolaunch?

[JohnFornaro]

Doggon it.  Put a winged vehicle under the StratoLaunch plane, and get on with it.

[spectre9]

Full reuse is about the only way this is ever going to pay off.

Trying to mix this technology with expendable rockets is difficult.

The winged rockets are going to cost as much as their vertically launched competition because they're such a customised piece of hardware.

[RanulfC]

How about launching military payloads on missions that require the specific capabilities that air launch provides? That was the original speculation as for the usefulness of this vehicle. From the beginning, people have been saying this isn't about price but, now that SpaceX is out of the picture, it is?

I'm not sure how much flexibility there will be - won't the carrier aircraft be very limited to the number of airports that can support it?

Yes, that's true.  It'll need about 2.5 miles of runway for take off and will weigh over a million pounds fully loaded.  Depending on the rocket it carries it'll need at least a quarter mile radius clear zone when loading propellants.  Not many airports can handle all that.

12,000 foot take off per this article:
http://www.newspacejournal.com/2011/12/15/stratolaunch-a-contrarian-view/

That comes out to around 3,600meters which this site notes that there are over 100 compatiable runways in the United States:
http://www.indexmundi.com/united_states/airports_with_paved_runways.html

The "required" clear-zone is unknown as there are not any hard-and-fast regulations concerning "propellant loading" per FAA regulations at this point. ("Technically" its pretty much illegal to load an aircraft with LOX at all, but there are variances and exceptions already in place such as for military aircraft and specialized aircraft) If they split up the propellants between the hulls, (LOX in one and Kero in the other) they could in fact bypass the regulations completely and need no more than a "standard" airport hazerdous cargo loading area which is already available at most major airports.

I should point out that there isn't any way that having something launched by StratoLaunch is going to allow "stealth" deployment of satillites, there are far to many "eyes" on the heavens and SOMEONE will spot it within a few orbits. The BIG advantage of airlaunch has always been launch flexability and the option of one orbit or less rendevous operations which by themselves very nice things to be able to do both with civil as well as military spacecraft.

....
Also, since the first stage already has wings, and the carrier already has to launch from a very large runway with is perfect for high-speed gliders, first stage recovery should not be hard. A ConOps could be to fly uprange of the base for launch, which would then allow the first stage to just glide down to land at the base. It's a much more elegant (and safer) first stage recovery scheme than Falcon 9, and one which stresses the vehicle much less, allowing for plenty of reuse.
...

This is not a bad conjecture to make sense of this confusing (to me at least) program.  "Glide forward" recovery was been discussed (See the old Selenian Boondocks blog from Jon Goff for instance.) and air launch solves the problem of needing a second base aligned with the launch inclination from a fixed launch site.

However, none of the images or videos show first stage recovery or landing gear.  If this was their intent, why would they not show it?  What possible benefit would there be in keeping this to themselves?  Secrecy is understandable if they have some unconventional payload for some unconventional customer, which is still my belief, but hiding first stage recovery?  That doesn't seem advantageous.

At a "guess" I'd say probably because there hasn't been an actual "rocket" to base the images on

What they have been using is probably better than a picture of a huge white "column" shaped object with big black letters saying "TBD" (To Be Decided at a later date )

The "Falcon" generic rocket had a set of wings but that was always stated as being "conjectural" at best. There were/are questions of whether the vehicle was going to perform an aerodynamic turn or if there was going to be another way of getting the proper angle at "launch" but it was quite clear that the folks in charge fully understood that launch angle was or primary importance.

One thing that is pretty clear is that this won't be "Pegasus-II" as it were, solids just won't cut it for the required payload, kero/LOx for the first stage is going to be "iffy" enough the upper stage(s) are going to need higher performance.

My "opinion" was always that Space-X was being looked at because of their proposed work on more advanced, high-energy upper stage engines along the proposed "Falcon" evolutionary track. Since that's been pushed back indefinatly and given the direction they are pursuing for recovery I'm not surprised that they and StratoLaunch have parted ways.

I'm also of the "opinion" that as the design for the Launch Vehicle progress' we'll probably see more information of recoverablity develop as well.

Randy

[RanulfC]

Um, the statement in the article says it and also makes perfect sense:

the current launch vehicle design has departed significantly from the Falcon derivative vehicle envisioned by SpaceX and does not fit well with their long-term strategic business model

With all the other things SpaceX is doing right now they _have_ to be severely limited on development capabilities.

I agree with most of this statement.  However, SpaceX has deviated significantly from their own long-term plan at one time or another as well.  Knowing that in development that is often the case (as they do know) if they were treading on such a thin line in the first place, I see no practical reason for them to become part of this venture at the get-go. 

Again, I believe it is over-commitment on the part of SpaceX. 

In more direct language "I'm going to blame it all on SpaceX no matter what anyone says "

The major issue is the divergance between what SpaceX is aiming for an what StratoLaunch seems to be aiming for. SpaceX couldn't "derive" a vehicle from the Falcon line into what StratoLaunch needed without a major redsign as well as major re-tooling.

By the "logic" you're using here Orbital needs to run screaming from this "contract" as they have no previous exeriance with or ability to develop the launcher "required" by StratoLaunch and therefore should simply "step-aside" without further study because this LV is not part of any of their proposed or suggested "evolution" of any of their current LVs.
Simple...

"Not" of course, but you are of course well aware of the way this process works. Like SpaceX, Orbital is going to have to take a hard look at what they can currently do and the vehicles they currently produce and see if what and if they can "adapt" to fit the proposed Stratolaunch aims.

Given the suggested requirements of StratoLaunch the most likley starting point is indeed (as suggested) the Antares LV but that is going to fall short right from the start. (200kg's low at best, more likely to fall short by over 1000kg to LEO. And it's over 20,000kg "overweight" for StratoLaunch being 240,000kg versus the required 220,000kg.) All before one includes the needed mass for horizontal Air-Launch instead of vertical Land-Launch and the necessary carry and support hardware. Orbital thinks they can do it and I'm inclined to believe them as they are not perhaps as "set" as SpaceX has to have become to continue development of the Falcon LV.
On the other hand, the REASON they are not as 'set' as SpaceX in their ways is because they haven't actually delved as deeply into development and construction as SpaceX has and, unfortunatly, this is the exact direction they are going to be REQUIRED to move if they do in fact design and build the StratoLaunch LV. Not something to be considered or undertaken lightly considering the long term effects for their overall business, and I won't be really "surprised" if Orbital ends up in the same "place" SpaceX is and declines to continue with StratoLaunch in the end.

(I'm of course HOPING otherwise but hey, I am NOT a professional in the "business" so it's not MY job on the line if I make the wrong call

Randy

[Rocket Science]

I guess if more parties bow out they could consider building their own rocket using their Hybrid technology...

[RanulfC]

... And speaking of the "Antares" per se... It's using "stockpiled" NK-33s/AJ26-62s which I am "assuming" means a limited supply. What are the odds Aerojet can/would build more if needed? I can't seem to find any numbers of available NK-43s/AJ26-61s are there any for use? Anyone know if the NKs were ever tested with alternate propellants?

I HIGHLY suspect this would be a good case for TAN (Thrust Augmentation Nozzle) tech. Just a quick "overview" look points to this being a VERY good project for Aerojet as well as Orbital if this is done right

Randy

[RanulfC]

I guess if more parties bow out they could consider building their own rocket using their Hybrid technology...

Uhm who's "hybrid" technology? I don't think anyone on the StratoLaunch program actually "does" hybrids. (I'm also very skeptical that hybrids would have the needed performance, not any of the ones "in-production" anyway. It might be possible to get what you want out of Paraffin/H2O2 hybrids or Paraffin/LOx but none of the others are on that level of performance)

Randy

[Robotbeat]

SpaceX has pulled out and that means this is a failure.
...

No, it doesn't. Orbital knows more about doing this than SpaceX does and has more expertise with working with other integrators. If anything, the venture is more likely to work now than before, since the greater experience allows the Orbital folks to foresee the teething problems before they bite them in the rear (mixing metaphors FTW!).

I'm no rocket scientist but...

[Jim]

What are the odds Aerojet can/would build more if needed?

100%.  They have stated that they can and will if needed.

[baldusi]

... And speaking of the "Antares" per se... It's using "stockpiled" NK-33s/AJ26-62s which I am "assuming" means a limited supply. What are the odds Aerojet can/would build more if needed? I can't seem to find any numbers of available NK-43s/AJ26-61s are there any for use? Anyone know if the NKs were ever tested with alternate propellants?

Since the AJ26-61 was the rocket of the Kristel proposal, I guess they do have them available.

I HIGHLY suspect this would be a good case for TAN (Thrust Augmentation Nozzle) tech. Just a quick "overview" look points to this being a VERY good project for Aerojet as well as Orbital if this is done right

Since they are launching from certain height, and the advantage is that you can use higher expansion (thus the NK-43), I highly doubt that you could get much benefit from TAN. The whole point is to use a highly expanded nozzle, that would suffer from chaotic under-expansion, and fill it with additional thrust.

[Rocket Science]

I guess if more parties bow out they could consider building their own rocket using their Hybrid technology...

Uhm who's "hybrid" technology? I don't think anyone on the StratoLaunch program actually "does" hybrids. (I'm also very skeptical that hybrids would have the needed performance, not any of the ones "in-production" anyway. It might be possible to get what you want out of Paraffin/H2O2 hybrids or Paraffin/LOx but none of the others are on that level of performance)

Randy

Hey Randy,
I'm thinking Burt Rutan with his "old company" Scaled Composites and their motor befopre he sold it. Perhaps there is a deal of last resort that can be made. SpaceDev proposed some large hybrid boosters for their then Dream Chaser about 10 years back or so with Benson Space... I'm sure you remember them...

[HMXHMX]

I guess if more parties bow out they could consider building their own rocket using their Hybrid technology...

Uhm who's "hybrid" technology? I don't think anyone on the StratoLaunch program actually "does" hybrids. (I'm also very skeptical that hybrids would have the needed performance, not any of the ones "in-production" anyway. It might be possible to get what you want out of Paraffin/H2O2 hybrids or Paraffin/LOx but none of the others are on that level of performance)

Randy

Hey Randy,
I'm thinking Burt Rutan with his "old company" Scaled Composites and their motor befopre he sold it. Perhaps there is a deal of last resort that can be made. SpaceDev proposed some large hybrid boosters for their then Dream Chaser about 10 years back or so with Benson Space... I'm sure you remember them...

Burt is retired.  Scaled has nothing to do with the launch vehicle.  Hybrids aren't useful for the Stratolaunch requirement.

[yg1968]

Another article on this topic:
http://www.spacenews.com/article/orbital-science-replaces-spacex-on-stratolaunch-project#.ULj1FmfNlIQ

“We have been engaging Orbital over the past few months and have them under a study contract through early next year with specific design deliverables,” Stratolaunch chief executive Gary Wentz wrote in a Nov. 28 email. “They are currently evaluating several alternative configurations that appear promising. We expect more information to be available in the February 2013 timeframe.” [...]

“We agreed with SpaceX that to meet our design requirements, the existing Falcon 9 architecture would require significant structural modifications to incorporate a fin/chine and to be carried horizontally,” Wentz said. “As we studied the design, it became apparent that SpaceX would have to make significant modifications to their manufacturing process to accommodate our configuration, which would have a pronounced effect on their business model.”

[Rocket Science]

I guess if more parties bow out they could consider building their own rocket using their Hybrid technology...

Uhm who's "hybrid" technology? I don't think anyone on the StratoLaunch program actually "does" hybrids. (I'm also very skeptical that hybrids would have the needed performance, not any of the ones "in-production" anyway. It might be possible to get what you want out of Paraffin/H2O2 hybrids or Paraffin/LOx but none of the others are on that level of performance)

Randy

Hey Randy,
I'm thinking Burt Rutan with his "old company" Scaled Composites and their motor befopre he sold it. Perhaps there is a deal of last resort that can be made. SpaceDev proposed some large hybrid boosters for their then Dream Chaser about 10 years back or so with Benson Space... I'm sure you remember them...

Burt is retired.  Scaled has nothing to do with the launch vehicle.  Hybrids aren't useful for the Stratolaunch requirement.

Burt in no longer part of the project, I didn’t know that, interesting...Thanks for the info Gary.    Yes I know about Scaled, I’m just referring to history and connections with the SS1 motor... The Hybrid would not be my motor of choice; but I would prefer that over a solid...

[yg1968]

Burt is retired from Scale but he is on the board of Stratolaunch. So he does have some input into the project.

[Rocket Science]

Burt is retired from Scale but he is on the board of Stratolaunch. So he does have some input into the project.

Thanks yg, that's how I understood it to be as the Stratolauncher is his design. Unless he quit, now that would be news!

[HMXHMX]

Burt is retired from Scale but he is on the board of Stratolaunch. So he does have some input into the project.

Yes, that is correct.  No involvement with Scaled, Board duties at SL.  But that is nowhere like hands-on management which is what many commentators and reporters seem to believe.  Burt is on record earlier this year questioning aspects of the a/c design, too, though his issues were not ever made public, as far as I am aware.

[HMXHMX]

I guess if more parties bow out they could consider building their own rocket using their Hybrid technology...

Uhm who's "hybrid" technology? I don't think anyone on the StratoLaunch program actually "does" hybrids. (I'm also very skeptical that hybrids would have the needed performance, not any of the ones "in-production" anyway. It might be possible to get what you want out of Paraffin/H2O2 hybrids or Paraffin/LOx but none of the others are on that level of performance)

Randy

Hey Randy,
I'm thinking Burt Rutan with his "old company" Scaled Composites and their motor befopre he sold it. Perhaps there is a deal of last resort that can be made. SpaceDev proposed some large hybrid boosters for their then Dream Chaser about 10 years back or so with Benson Space... I'm sure you remember them...

Burt is retired.  Scaled has nothing to do with the launch vehicle.  Hybrids aren't useful for the Stratolaunch requirement.

Burt in no longer part of the project, I didn’t know that, interesting...Thanks for the info Gary.    Yes I know about Scaled, I’m just referring to history and connections with the SS1 motor... The Hybrid would not be my motor of choice; but I would prefer that over a solid...

There is no vendor who has the capability to develop the hybrids (at least three separate stages) necessary to launch the reference payload.  And from what I know of large hybrids, there never will be.  SL's only option is a liquid, employing one or two stages.