Stratolaunch: General Company and Development Updates and Discussions

[Lee Jay]

As long as the total width of the landing gears fits on the runway, it should work. It's like an A3 Sky Warrior or an A5 Vigilante catapulting off a carrier.

You do need margin for steering and landing inaccuracies, and you have to make sure there aren't things off the runway to clip.

[Hauerg]

Looks like a tanker to me. And a lot like the cvx proposal by t/space before ESAS study showed us the way to the past. But using available parts wherever possible like dragon, merlins, falcon 9 machining etc.
Without recovery of first stage i just cannot understand what the business case does look like. The F5 stage simply cannot be not cheap enough.

[wolfpack]

As long as the total width of the landing gears fits on the runway, it should work. It's like an A3 Sky Warrior or an A5 Vigilante catapulting off a carrier.

You do need margin for steering and landing inaccuracies, and you have to make sure there aren't things off the runway to clip.

Runways are cheap compared to aircraft, launch vehicles and spacecraft. Especially out west, where geology has just about built them for you! How many takeoff/landing site would it need?

[HammerD]

As long as the total width of the landing gears fits on the runway, it should work. It's like an A3 Sky Warrior or an A5 Vigilante catapulting off a carrier.

You do need margin for steering and landing inaccuracies, and you have to make sure there aren't things off the runway to clip.

Runways are cheap compared to aircraft, launch vehicles and spacecraft. Especially out west, where geology has just about built them for you! How many takeoff/landing site would it need?

Sure but you are going to need FAA clearance to launch this over land.  Are they going to get that when they are essentially carrying a huge bomb?

[SpacexULA]

Can't use Spacex's holddown before launch PR spin

Could they fire all 5 engines before the vehcile is released?

[Lars_J]

Falcon 5 lives! ;-) (in PowerPoint at least)

I like the concept of air launch, but the fuzzy details make me a bit skeptical. But I'm hoping for the best. Nice for SpaceX to have another revenue stream, even if it might not be significant initially.

[Jeff Lerner]

...only thing missing was having Mike Griffin call this "Pegasus on Steroids".....

[Tcommon]

can't download the press kit yet and didn't see the webcase but my take from the video on youtube ...

-more complicated than an F9 launch, probably more expensive
-evolution towards reusable components
-ability to launch at different latitudes, but carrier only doesn't have that great a range or speed.

I don't see many advantages for this yet.

[savuporo]

Even as the concept is fairly "meh" as it looks like right now ( but we dont know what their intended market is ) at least it is another major investment in new type of launch capability, maybe it will help attract mode angel type funding to the area.

[BeanEstimator]

what the hey?

because we have such a large market for commercial sats to orbit we need another option?

because we have such a long list of rich folks waiting for rides into space? (how many has spaceshipone carried thus far?)

because launching from a pad is bad practice?

maybe it's just me...but i don't understand where this is going, or what they expect their business to do.  then again, they have all the money, and i'm just a working stiff...what do i know.

Do you mean technically or financially?

i would assume that the latter would be important...since we have available options today to technically accomplish what they propose (payload to leo)

LOL, I bet some peoples heads are exploding at this moment because all their assumptions about everything have been turned on their head to some degree...

the only thing my head is doing is shaking from left to right, repeatedly

Plans call for a first flight within five years.

riiightttt....i assume that's first test flight.  how many people/tourists/etc have we launched collectively thus far mr. rutan, mr. musk, and mr. branson?

The air-launch-to-orbit system will mean lower costs, greater safety, and more flexibility and responsiveness than is possible today with ground-based systems.

will be interested to hear how this is backed up and supported by evidence with analysis.  i don't dispute we are ineffective today.  i do find it hard to reconcile a completely new air to launch system, with lower costs.

Stratolaunch’s quick turnaround between launches will enable new orbital missions as well as break the logjam of missions queued up for launch facilities and a chance at space.

we have a logjam of payloads just sitting around?  who knew?


sorry to be a sour puss.  i just don't get it.  don't get me wrong, i love innovation.  think outside the box.  do it differently.  but at this point, i'm not a buyer.  one thing i will say, is hopefully the continued announcements from commercial (f9h, red dragon, osc @ wallops, this, etc.) will get people re-interested in space.  good luck to them, and here's to hoping the market appears like they have forecasted.  maybe my future kids and grandkids will get to ride on one. 

[Jim]

Runways are cheap compared to aircraft, launch vehicles and spacecraft. Especially out west, where geology has just about built them for you! How many takeoff/landing site would it need?

Not true, see this link

http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=27520.msg838854#msg838854

[iamlucky13]

Wow...I would never have guessed this would be the announcement.

A few comments, some in reference to past posts, others just my thoughts:

 - Ed Kyle had an astute point about fuel and landing in case of a post-takeoff abort. Maximum landing weights are typically substantially less than maximum takeoff weights.

 - An-225 has about a 2500 mile range with a 550,000 pound payload. A 1300 mile radius in a twin fuselage aircraft with additional equipment for fuel topoff and drop sounds ambitious.

 - 1.2 million pounds is less than the max takeoff weight of either the An-225 or the A380, although the 385 foot wingspan is 65 feet longer than the next widest span ever built - the Spruce Goose.

 - The nose of the aircraft is visually similar to a 747. Since the rest of the fuselage has nothing in common with a 747 (most importantly the high-mounted wing), I can think of no practical reason for this. The 747's hump was created to accommodate the nose door on the freighter version.

 - The current Falcon does not have to deal with horizontal gravity loads while fueled. Significant structural modification would be expected.

 - You can build a Vandenberg pad plus a lot of Falcon 9's for the billions of dollars this plane will cost to build. I'm really puzzled by this architecture.

 - You only save a couple percent on energy due to the altitude and speed of a carrier aircraft.

 - You potentially gain a few percent in ISP by starting at a higher altitude with optimized nozzles.

 - It would be impossible to say for sure right now they're planning on using the current 747 engine option (GEnx or Trent 1000). It could just as easily be the more cheaply available CF-6 series. They have similar thrust ratings, and I doubt the fuel efficiency gains would cover the added cost for a low flight rate aircraft like this.

- Video cites 9200 mile "alternate cargo range." I've seen pictures of the An-225 being loaded with cargo that barely fits and requires custom handling equipment. A centerline cargo pod might find them some specialty business like that. Consider that you have rockets with 5 meter fairings, but if you move payloads by aircraft, the largest has a 4.4 meter high load height, including the transport container.

- 13,500 pounds to LEO. Unsurprisingly a fair amount lower than the Falcon 9 or EELV.

[ugordan]

Plans call for a first flight within five years.

riiightttt....i assume that's first test flight.  how many people/tourists/etc have we launched collectively thus far mr. rutan, mr. musk, and mr. branson?

And just what do space tourists have to do with this?

[JMS]

What a shame Rutan, Griffin, Musk and Allen didn't consult with the members of this forum first before embarrassing themselves with this proposal.

[mmeijeri]

And just what do space tourists have to do with this?

They are the countless payloads made at home with unskilled labour.

[ugordan]

What a shame Rutan, Griffin, Musk and Allen didn't consult with the members of this forum first before embarrassing themselves with this proposal.

LOL.

[sdsds]

Did they explicitly say the systems integration role falls to Stratolaunch?  Who does Stratolaunch employ with credentials for that?  Somebody with a long background handling big projects at e.g. LM or Boeing?  Unless they want things done "the NASA way" it doesn't seem like a long career as a NASA bureaucrat counts!

Did they say anything about contingencies on the runway, during initial climb out, during carrier flight, or at rocket separation/ignition?

Dynetics is privately held but presumably Griffin knows the principals there well (given the Huntsville connection).  The Dynetics prototyping facility is less than a year old, if it is even complete yet:
Dynetics breaks ground on 226,500-square-foot prototyping facility
Published: Monday, November 15, 2010
http://blog.al.com/huntsville-times-business/2010/11/dynetics_breaks_ground_on_2265.html

Has Dynetics been involved in projects like this attach/disconnect system in the past?

[Jkew]

can't download the press kit yet and didn't see the webcase but my take from the video on youtube ...

-more complicated than an F9 launch, probably more expensive
-evolution towards reusable components
-ability to launch at different latitudes, but carrier only doesn't have that great a range or speed.

I don't see many advantages for this yet.

I would add to advantages
   - launch under more diverse weather conditions
   - ability to fly out towards a more unpopulated area or the ocean for the launch
   - results in a carrier plane for other large rockets ( may help resolve the problem of getting falcon 9s to the cape )
   - fewer engines to lose to the sea
   - appears to be an evolutionary change from the SS2 ( SS3? )

The little wings on the falcon 4/5 also make me think of a fly-back booster, but that's grossly speculative.

Disadvantages:
   - much more complicated
   - rocket needs to held horizontally, fully fueled during flight; significant change to the structure
   - possible fairing size issues
   - possible payload integration issues
   - as Jim mentioned no hold-back

[Jim]

So is Griffin going to get them to put an SRB on it?

[wolfpack]

Runways are cheap compared to aircraft, launch vehicles and spacecraft. Especially out west, where geology has just about built them for you! How many takeoff/landing site would it need?

Not true, see this link

http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=27520.msg838854#msg838854

I said runways. I agree ground support facilities are NOT cheap. A runway is a giant concrete rectangle. Or a dry lake bed with some paint on it.