Stratolaunch: General Company and Development Updates and Discussions

[Zed_Noir]

From Doug Messier's Parabolicarc web site. It appears that Stratolaunch will be using a pair of RL10C-1 engines on the Thunderbolt upper stage.

The design concept for The Eagles Launch System involves the launch of an unmanned rocket dubbed Thunderbolt, carrying a commercial or government payload from beneath the fuselage of a giant carrier aircraft. According to the concept, the carrier aircraft will be powered by six Boeing 747 class jet engines and have a wingspan greater than the length of a football field. Upon reaching a prescribed altitude, the rocket will be dropped from the aircraft, at which point two stages of solid rocket boosters will fire and propel the rocket skyward. Once the solid rocket boosters are expended, two Aerojet Rocketdyne RL10C-1 engines will ignite to ultimately place the satellite into proper orbit.

Link to news article

[Skyrocket]

The complete system is named "Stratolaunch Eagles", with rocket now named "Thunderbolt" and the carrier plane is "Roc"

http://www.orbital.com/AdvancedSystems/Publications/Stratolaunch_factsheet.pdf

[simonbp]

The complete system is named "Stratolaunch Eagles", with rocket now named "Thunderbolt" and the carrier plane is "Roc"

http://www.orbital.com/AdvancedSystems/Publications/Stratolaunch_factsheet.pdf

Huh. If I'm looking that tail right, it's positive staggered biplane with a flat upper wing and negative dihedral lower wing....

Stratolaunch Thunderbolt: Biplane to the Stars!

[Lars_J]

Anytime you name a singular system or vehicle with a plural name, it just sounds to incredibly awkward. Why couldn't they just call it "Stratolaunch Eagle"?

BTW, so much for the benefit of air launch... A GIANT aircraft, two solid stages, and a third stage with two RL-10.

And all that to lift LESS than what a Atlas V without SRBs can lift (using one RL-10). How is this supposed to be cheaper?

[JasonAW3]

Anytime you name a singular system or vehicle with a plural name, it just sounds to incredibly awkward. Why couldn't they just call it "Stratolaunch Eagle"?

BTW, so much for the benefit of air launch... A GIANT aircraft, two solid stages, and a third stage with two RL-10.

And all that to lift LESS than what a Atlas V without SRBs can lift (using one RL-10). How is this supposed to be cheaper?

Not so sure if cheaper is the operating idea here.  Launch crossrange is likely the driving force here.  Launching a rocket from an area that has no launch facilities allows them to launch to any orbit inclination they want, so long as the payload limits are observed.

This makes the Stratolaunch system VERY desirable to the military, as they could launch a payload, and no one would ever hear about it.

[Jim]

This makes the Stratolaunch system VERY desirable to the military, as they could launch a payload, and no one would ever hear about it.

Not really, there are few places that this plane can operate from and rocket launches are hard to hide.

[Zed_Noir]

This makes the Stratolaunch system VERY desirable to the military, as they could launch a payload, and no one would ever hear about it.

Not really, there are few places that this plane can operate from and rocket launches are hard to hide.

Like any of the current and former B52 & B1 bomber bases.

[arachnitect]

This makes the Stratolaunch system VERY desirable to the military, as they could launch a payload, and no one would ever hear about it.

Not really, there are few places that this plane can operate from and rocket launches are hard to hide.

Like any of the current and former B52 & B1 bomber bases.

If they have cryo propellant support, a stratolaunch hanger, and are in range of a drop area.

There's no hiding this behemoth.

[JasonAW3]

This makes the Stratolaunch system VERY desirable to the military, as they could launch a payload, and no one would ever hear about it.

Not really, there are few places that this plane can operate from and rocket launches are hard to hide.

Oh, I don't know about that.  Edwards Airforce Base, White Sand New Mexico are just two that immediately come to mind.  (Yeah and Area 51 with its' GINORMOUSLY long runway!)

Almost any airbase that could accomidate a B-52, and a few regular airports that could too.  Norfolk International, Ocean Naval Airstation, Norfolk Naval Air Station, Andrews AFB are just 4 in Virginia alone.

    Should I go on?

[Jim]

Almost any airbase that could accomidate a B-52, and a few regular airports that could too.  Norfolk International, Ocean Naval Airstation, Norfolk Naval Air Station, Andrews AFB are just 4 in Virginia alone.

    Should I go on?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_longest_runways

But the key is not runway length.

http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=27520.msg838846#msg838846

[jongoff]

Almost any airbase that could accomidate a B-52, and a few regular airports that could too.  Norfolk International, Ocean Naval Airstation, Norfolk Naval Air Station, Andrews AFB are just 4 in Virginia alone.

    Should I go on?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_longest_runways

But the key is not runway length.

http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=27520.msg838846#msg838846

Curiosity question (I honestly don't know the answer), which is harder to add to an airport--a 12000ft runway, or propellant handling/spacecraft handling facilities?

~Jon

[Jim]

Curiosity question (I honestly don't know the answer), which is harder to add to an airport--a 12000ft runway, or propellant handling/spacecraft handling facilities?

~Jon

both have NIMBY issues.  But a remote airport like DIA should have no trouble with adding propellant handling/spacecraft handling facilities (but the airport elevation may cause issues)? Former USAF bases should have no trouble.

[jongoff]

Curiosity question (I honestly don't know the answer), which is harder to add to an airport--a 12000ft runway, or propellant handling/spacecraft handling facilities?

~Jon

both have NIMBY issues.  But a remote airport like DIA should have no trouble with adding propellant handling/spacecraft handling facilities (but the airport elevation may cause issues)? Former USAF bases should have no trouble.

The bigger problem for DIA (unless the carrier aircraft has a really long ferrying capability) would be getting some place you can drop those first stages. That's why I was always a fan of doing air launched rockets using reusable first stages with glide-forward landing. But that's non-trivial, and getting quickly off-topic.

That said, I'd love to be able to see an orbital launch take off from DIA... :-)

~Jon

[edkyle99]

Re: the B-52 runway idea.  Currently B-52s (less than 80 remain, and 1/3rd of those are in reserve duty) are only stationed at two Air Force Bases, one in North Dakota and one in Louisiana.  You can find a lot of abandoned or re-purposed B-52 bases around the world from SAC days on Google Earth, but many have become passenger airports, overrun by population.  Others have turned into museums or have been covered in weeds. 

 - Ed Kyle

[JasonAW3]

Re: the B-52 runway idea.  Currently B-52s (less than 80 remain, and 1/3rd of those are in reserve duty) are only stationed at two Air Force Bases, one in North Dakota and one in Louisiana.  You can find a lot of abandoned or re-purposed B-52 bases around the world from SAC days on Google Earth, but many have become passenger airports, overrun by population.  Others have turned into museums or have been covered in weeds. 

 - Ed Kyle

I thought that we were still using Diego Garcia out in the Indian ocean. (Not that he'd likely use it to launch a space craft) 

As to the old bases, many of these could be reactivated, and if commercial ariel launches take off, (pardon the pun) likely would be as potential spaceports.

[Lars_J]

The field probably has to be close to the drop point, since it will have a hydro-lox upper stage. I don't think any air-drop rocket has ever had to deal with those kinds of cryogenic boil-off and top-off issues yet, right?

[hop]

as they could launch a payload, and no one would ever hear about it.

Except the people with early warning systems designed specifically to detect launches of similarly sized rockets. Firing off ICBM sized rockets unannounced is a seriously bad idea.

Whatever the rational for Stratolaunch might be, stealth launches aren't it.

[jongoff]

The field probably has to be close to the drop point, since it will have a hydro-lox upper stage. I don't think any air-drop rocket has ever had to deal with those kinds of cryogenic boil-off and top-off issues yet, right?

True. But Quest Thermal's insulation technology could solve that boiloff problem pretty effectively. They've come up with a MLI technology that includes a lightweight integral vacuum shell so it can work inside the atmosphere. They were developing it to enable long duration high-altitude LH2-fueled UAVs that need to fly around for weeks without having all their LH2 boiloff prematurely. The stuff is much better than SOFI in air, and worlds better in vacuum. I got to see some of their prototypes a few months ago.

http://questthermal.com/products/load-responsive-mli

~Jon

[HMXHMX]

as they could launch a payload, and no one would ever hear about it.

Except the people with early warning systems designed specifically to detect launches of similarly sized rockets. Firing off ICBM sized rockets unannounced is a seriously bad idea.

Whatever the rational for Stratolaunch might be, stealth launches aren't it.

Not every adversary has the capability to detect launches.  Covertness and first orbit rendezvous are the only justifiable reasons for such a capability unless you are flying crew, where there is an argument to be made for enhanced safety of abort.

[Burninate]

Re: the B-52 runway idea.  Currently B-52s (less than 80 remain, and 1/3rd of those are in reserve duty) are only stationed at two Air Force Bases, one in North Dakota and one in Louisiana.  You can find a lot of abandoned or re-purposed B-52 bases around the world from SAC days on Google Earth, but many have become passenger airports, overrun by population.  Others have turned into museums or have been covered in weeds. 

 - Ed Kyle

I thought that we were still using Diego Garcia out in the Indian ocean. (Not that he'd likely use it to launch a space craft) 

As to the old bases, many of these could be reactivated, and if commercial ariel launches take off, (pardon the pun) likely would be as potential spaceports.

If you needed to launch something on a covert schedule, could set up a routine trans-shipment setup, and weren't worried about satellites with thermal video cameras, Diego Garcia would work quite well.  Nobody without Secret clearance for 500km in every direction, excepting whatever naval or shipping vessels are in the ocean nearby.  On the other hand... Covert launches aren't exactly a thing anyone's interested in due to their resemblance to nuclear missiles - at most they want to make sure the payload's covered up until the upper atmosphere, and they can do that from KSC / Vandenberg.