Out of curiosity, did this CXV capsule have a pusher LAS?
Former NASA Administrator Mike Griffin, also a Stratolaunch board member, joined Allen and Rutan at a press conference in Seattle to announce the project. “We believe this technology has the potential to someday make spaceflight routine by removing many of the constraints associated with ground launched rockets,” Griffin said. “Our system will also provide the flexibility to launch from a large variety of locations.”
Quote from: sdsds on 04/16/2013 07:34 pmQuote from: Oli on 04/16/2013 07:14 pmLooks expensive, why not make the first solid stage longer and get rid of the mammoth plane?Because they're optimizing for something other than $/kg delivered to orbit. Exactly what they are optimizing for is worth speculation. My guess is that they want what would have been called "operational responsiveness" had that term not lost favor.Huh? I was under the impression that part of their goal is certainly reducing $/kg costs. By reducing the launch price just a small amount, they would show a greater profit.It is clear that "operational responsiveness" is a big part of their business plan. They hope to insert to orbit from any longitude or latitude or time. That would be an incentive to raise prices for customers who really need their payloads delivered anywhere on time. With reduced launch costs and flyback capability, hey; higher profit.
Quote from: Oli on 04/16/2013 07:14 pmLooks expensive, why not make the first solid stage longer and get rid of the mammoth plane?Because they're optimizing for something other than $/kg delivered to orbit. Exactly what they are optimizing for is worth speculation. My guess is that they want what would have been called "operational responsiveness" had that term not lost favor.
Looks expensive, why not make the first solid stage longer and get rid of the mammoth plane?
Quote from: JohnFornaro on 04/17/2013 12:58 pmQuote from: sdsds on 04/16/2013 07:34 pmQuote from: Oli on 04/16/2013 07:14 pmLooks expensive, why not make the first solid stage longer and get rid of the mammoth plane?Because they're optimizing for something other than $/kg delivered to orbit. Exactly what they are optimizing for is worth speculation. My guess is that they want what would have been called "operational responsiveness" had that term not lost favor.Huh? I was under the impression that part of their goal is certainly reducing $/kg costs. By reducing the launch price just a small amount, they would show a greater profit.It is clear that "operational responsiveness" is a big part of their business plan. They hope to insert to orbit from any longitude or latitude or time. That would be an incentive to raise prices for customers who really need their payloads delivered anywhere on time. With reduced launch costs and flyback capability, hey; higher profit.I find myself very skeptical about the business case. It seems doubtful that this design will be competitive with other designs on a $/kg basis. That leaves operational flexibility. Is there really a market for launch anytime anywhere that would justify the development costs of a huge aircraft plus a new rocket?I would have liked to see Paul Allen make a better investment of his money, but it's not my money and he can spend it however he sees fit.
http://www.spaceandtech.com/spacedata/engines/nk33_specs.shtmlIs it possible they will use the AJ26-60 on the 1st stage of this launcher?If so what engine could they use for the second stage that uses RP-1/LOX ( I estimate the second stage would use around a 100,000lb thrust engine )?
The attached image, captured from the Stratolaunch web site, shows what seems to be the new design. I believe that Chris is showing the same design on the front page of NASASpaceflight.com now. There is more on L2.
Roughly how much more payload does launching this rocket from an airplane allow versus launching from the ground?
Quote from: notsorandom on 05/05/2013 05:50 amRoughly how much more payload does launching this rocket from an airplane allow versus launching from the ground?It's a good question. Even Burt Rutan, a big advocate of air launch, doesn't claim more than a few percent benefit (IIRC less than 10%). For him it's as much about safety, especially when launching people (eg see http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/space/news/burt-rutan-on-designing-the-worlds-largest-airplane).Stratolaunch also talk a lot about operational flexibility, avoiding weather issues etc (eg see http://www.stratolaunch.com/presskit/Strato_PressKitFull_March2013.pdf). So even they don't seem to focus on payload advantages.BTW I know a lot of people disagree about operational flexibility being a realistic benefit. I tend to agree, especially with what will be the world's largest aircraft as the first stage!
Just like "rockets are not legos" we should understand that not all launches need the infrastructure of the Cape.
Didn't Dr. Antonio Elias talk about this in his systems engineering talk on lessons learned from Pegasus? About how Pegasus can indeed be launched from a wide variety of locations, but then the FAA starts talking about safety and having protected airspace and range safety, and the customers and engineers talk about wanting to track the launch and get telemetry back,...and it turns out the easiest solution is to launch at a site which have controlled ranges and range assets: space launch sites. So, in practice, while they did launch from five different locations, those locations were all space launch sites.
Quote from: RocketmanUS on 05/04/2013 03:02 amhttp://www.spaceandtech.com/spacedata/engines/nk33_specs.shtmlIs it possible they will use the AJ26-60 on the 1st stage of this launcher?If so what engine could they use for the second stage that uses RP-1/LOX ( I estimate the second stage would use around a 100,000lb thrust engine )?The following story says that the Orbital Stratolaunch rocket will use solid and liquid stages, though it doesn't say in which order.http://www.spacenews.com/article/financial-report/34789stratolaunch-to-award-booster-contract-to-orbital-in-may#.UYSBJEq8p4MThe attached image, captured from the Stratolaunch web site, shows what seems to be the new design. I believe that Chris is showing the same design on the front page of NASASpaceflight.com now. There is more on L2.Stratolaunch says that it will soon reveal more details.All I will say is that I did not buy into Stratolaunch as originally announced. After seeing what Orbital has up its sleeves, I'm buying it now. - Ed Kyle
Quote from: HMXHMX on 05/05/2013 07:04 amJust like "rockets are not legos" we should understand that not all launches need the infrastructure of the Cape. Sure, but what about other constraints (eg see below) or are they overstated?Quote from: a_langwich on 05/02/2013 06:29 amDidn't Dr. Antonio Elias talk about this in his systems engineering talk on lessons learned from Pegasus? About how Pegasus can indeed be launched from a wide variety of locations, but then the FAA starts talking about safety and having protected airspace and range safety, and the customers and engineers talk about wanting to track the launch and get telemetry back,...and it turns out the easiest solution is to launch at a site which have controlled ranges and range assets: space launch sites. So, in practice, while they did launch from five different locations, those locations were all space launch sites.
Quote from: FutureSpaceTourist on 05/05/2013 07:16 amQuote from: HMXHMX on 05/05/2013 07:04 amJust like "rockets are not legos" we should understand that not all launches need the infrastructure of the Cape. Sure, but what about other constraints (eg see below) or are they overstated?Quote from: a_langwich on 05/02/2013 06:29 amDidn't Dr. Antonio Elias talk about this in his systems engineering talk on lessons learned from Pegasus? About how Pegasus can indeed be launched from a wide variety of locations, but then the FAA starts talking about safety and having protected airspace and range safety, and the customers and engineers talk about wanting to track the launch and get telemetry back,...and it turns out the easiest solution is to launch at a site which have controlled ranges and range assets: space launch sites. So, in practice, while they did launch from five different locations, those locations were all space launch sites.Here's the difference. Stratolaunch could, in theory, launch to any orbital inclination from just one base (any inclination higher than the base latitude that is). No need for an East and a West coast site. KSC or the Cape, or anyplace on the East Coast with a big enough runway, could do it all. - Ed Kyle
I'm still skeptical that this LV has the wings placed appropriately for air launch, they just seem to be located WAAAY too far back for that. But perhaps it is just an artist impressions. Or the front is made of foam.
