Stratolaunch: General Company and Development Updates and Discussions

[Blackstar]

1) the project has a government money source and is as such a modern "Glomar Explorer".   This was alluded to earlier in the thread.

The logic goes something like this:

-This thing is crazy and stupid and makes no sense.
-There is no way that they're going to make money on this, and they're entering a crowded market.
-It can launch from anywhere, in any direction. (Not really true. They're going to have lots of airfield and airplane range and tracking restrictions.)
-There's a billionaire behind it, and billionaires are not stupid and don't spend their money frivolously.

Ergo:

It only makes sense if there is some explanation that we don't know about that justifies all this money. So it must be covert and classified.


And I find that logic to be pretty specious. It's an effort to try and make sense out of something that doesn't really make sense. The DoD doesn't need another launch vehicle, it needs cheaper launch vehicles. And if this was for a covert launch capability it will never be used enough times to justify its development cost. Besides, it's easier to simply hide your covert mission on another military mission. That's how they have done it in the past.

Lots of people have pursued ridiculous or unrealistic goals in spaceflight and they didn't have classified explanations. The explanations in the past have been that people have ridiculous dreams and let their pride and ego lead them in illogical directions. That should be all the explanation required. As someone has already noted, while Howard Hughes did the Glomar Explorer, he also did the Spruce Goose.

I think this is Paul Allen's pet ego project (I call it Egolauncher). When you have billions of dollars and like to spend money on expensive toys (look up his yacht), wouldn't it be cool to own the largest airplane in the world and launch rockets from it? Wouldn't that give you great bragging rights over Richard Branson and Elon Musk?

I personally don't see any problem with that. More power to Allen. Even if this fails as a business venture it will advance the state of the art in several technologies such as composites for very large aircraft. I'm glad that there are people spending money on R&D. So good luck to Allen and his team.

[Space Ghost 1962]

Correct. The presumption that wealth is always applied for a monetary ROI is stunning stupid.

Hundreds to thousands of examples of where wealth is applied against any monetary gain, where the ROI is measured in power, or even just foolishness. In some cases it is "bragging rights", or whim. I've also seen spite and outright madness.

He just wants a big plane. The excuse is to launch rockets of some kind. Better than putting millions into a Neverland Ranch I guess.

[arachnitect]

I strongly believe there's no merit to this white elephant. There are so many more deserving projects in aerospace right now, not to mention the rest of the economy.

I don't think Allen is doing this because he just wants a big plane though. I think he's doing it because he's spent enought time around air launch advocates to become convinced it's the best way to launch rockets, but not enough time to really understand the economics of it all.

-

Recently there's been a bunch of new air launch stuff popping up. Generation Orbit, Launcher One, NASA's towed glider thing, the DARPA stuff, etc. I was looking at these things and wondering if they really are cheaper than the solid motor substitute that would put your micro launcher at 40,000'. It looks to me that below a certain size the air launch probably does make sense. The question is, where is the crossover point?

[Space Ghost 1962]

I strongly believe there's no merit to this white elephant. There are so many more deserving projects in aerospace right now, not to mention the rest of the economy.

But with those projects, there may be no associated "bragging rights" or "power" for a set amount of money.

Allen got a lot of lift from SpaceShip One. Had nothing to do with profit. Sure there's something with Virgin Galactic from it, but no 10x return like to be expected for this investor class.

I don't think Allen is doing this because he just wants a big plane though. I think he's doing it because he's spent enought time around air launch advocates to become convinced it's the best way to launch rockets, but not enough time to really understand the economics of it all.

If you don't understand the economics, or the customer base for a service, then the entire deal is pure speculation. As with SpaceShip One. Again, an excuse to build a big plane.

You do air launch solids because you don't risk crew/carrier with greater hazards.

If you're very serious about air launch, you'd look at approaches like Kirk Sorenson's for max lift of something in the EELV range - this is much less.

Recently there's been a bunch of new air launch stuff popping up. Generation Orbit, Launcher One, NASA's towed glider thing, the DARPA stuff, etc. I was looking at these things and wondering if they really are cheaper than the solid motor substitute that would put your micro launcher at 40,000'. It looks to me that below a certain size the air launch probably does make sense. The question is, where is the crossover point?

Belongs in another thread.

The issue for this thread is what kind of launcher/economics for the launchpad they are building. Which points to the crazy here - you design a launchpad to a launch vehicle, and this is the other way around.

It would not surprise me that they make the launchpad that doesn't/can't launch anything, in the end. Or perhaps does 1-2 launches.

add:

Come to think of it, maybe its the times we are traveling thru now.

After all, the Congress designed a rocket that still has no missions, no mission modules, ... no point other than to lob an unmanned capsule around the moon once, and a manned capsule the second time.

In that light, perhaps it follows the same pattern.

[baldusi]

I'm not that versed in the American tax system. Normally, when writing off some project, you "recover" 35% in tax savings (or the marginal tax rate for physical persons, which is something like 48%, I believe). But what about donations to the Smothsonian or the Air and Space Museum? Can you get a 100% on the value of the donated item? It could well cover most of the investment if the project fails.

[Blackstar]

Recently there's been a bunch of new air launch stuff popping up. Generation Orbit, Launcher One, NASA's towed glider thing, the DARPA stuff, etc. I was looking at these things and wondering if they really are cheaper than the solid motor substitute that would put your micro launcher at 40,000'. It looks to me that below a certain size the air launch probably does make sense. The question is, where is the crossover point?

There was a panel discussion about air launch at the AIAA SciTech conference last month. They did discuss the fact that there are a lot of air launch projects happening right now. But the panelists were actually not overly optimistic about air launch in general. One of the things that several panelists seemed to agree on was that having a dedicated launch aircraft is not a good way to do it, because the cost of maintaining the aircraft dominates your overall costs. That has been a problem for Pegasus and it has been a factor in a number of the other projects that were started and then canceled. It is also a factor in the towed glider and ALASA projects, where they are trying to avoid that.

Stratolaunch is building an aircraft that is going to be very expensive to maintain. And even if they only launch a few times a year they are going to have to pay maintenance, training, certification and all the other costs.

[rayleighscatter]

the cost of maintaining the aircraft dominates your overall costs.

Maintaining an aircraft in the desert is very likely cheaper than maintaining a launch complex next to the ocean.

[KSC Sage]

the cost of maintaining the aircraft dominates your overall costs.

Maintaining an aircraft in the desert is very likely cheaper than maintaining a launch complex next to the ocean.

Good point.  Plus this airplane is basically a big 747 and there are lots of cheap 747 spares available.

[Blackstar]

the cost of maintaining the aircraft dominates your overall costs.

Maintaining an aircraft in the desert is very likely cheaper than maintaining a launch complex next to the ocean.

Well, they discussed it in terms of absolute costs, not relative to something on the ground. A dedicated carrier aircraft--i.e. one that cannot do anything else and where all the costs are charged to the launcher program--is apparently a big chunk of the overall operating costs. So getting that cost down is an important way to reduce the overall program costs.

Simply maintaining the certification, license, training and pilots is going to cost money. Think about that L-1011 that Orbital uses--it has three pilots. If it launches only one rocket per year, the salary and training costs of those three pilots have to be charged entirely to that single launch. Now maybe those guys are on retainer and they spend the rest of the year flying 737s for Southwest or something and only show up at Orbital when needed, but Orbital has to pay for their certification and training on the unique L-1011. That cannot be cheap. Same is true for the maintenance guys and everything specific to that aircraft.

Stratolaunch is going to have the same issues.

[Blackstar]

Good point.  Plus this airplane is basically a big 747 and there are lots of cheap 747 spares available.

Airframe, wings, control structures, avionics not from a 747. It's getting the 747 engines. Just about everything else is new.

[Lars-J]

Good point.  Plus this airplane is basically a big 747 and there are lots of cheap 747 spares available.

Airframe, wings, control structures, avionics not from a 747. It's getting the 747 engines. Just about everything else is new.

Which is so bizarre. There must be more items they are interested in (landing gear?), otherwise I would hope it would be cheaper to just call up GE or RR to order some engines directly. But perhaps used 747's are so cheap...

[rayleighscatter]

I would hope it would be cheaper to just call up GE or RR to order some engines directly. But perhaps used 747's are so cheap...

6 Engines would total about $150 million new or about $30 million used.

[JBF]

Good point.  Plus this airplane is basically a big 747 and there are lots of cheap 747 spares available.

Airframe, wings, control structures, avionics not from a 747. It's getting the 747 engines. Just about everything else is new.

Which is so bizarre. There must be more items they are interested in (landing gear?), otherwise I would hope it would be cheaper to just call up GE or RR to order some engines directly. But perhaps used 747's are so cheap...

Wentz says Stratolaunch is in the process of purchasing two used 747-400s that will be cannibalized for engines, avionics, flight deck, landing gear and other proven systems that can be recycled to cut development costs.

from http://aviationweek.com/awin/allen-places-big-bet-air-launches

[MP99]

Good point.  Plus this airplane is basically a big 747 and there are lots of cheap 747 spares available.

Airframe, wings, control structures, avionics not from a 747. It's getting the 747 engines. Just about everything else is new.

I thought they were using the cockpit, too?

Cheers, Martin

[Todd Martin]

I'd like to just point out that conventional wisdom regarding the likelihood of success can be wrong.  Conventional thinking was that it was impossible to start a new car company from scratch.  The start-up costs were too high and the difficulty of actually producing high volumes of profitable cars too hard.   Yet, we have Tesla.  Conventional thinking was that starting a new launch vehicle business was impossible.  The start-up costs too high, the learning curve too steep, the competition too subsidized.  Yet, we have SpaceX.

Strato-Launch is an order of magnitude larger scale than Pegasus.  There are unique challenges and benefits inherent in scaling-up a technology to that degree.  I've seen first-hand in my career with pharmaceutical machinery that this sort of innovation brings in new customer bases.  Strato-launch can broaden the market, not just compete for what is there now.
     

[starchasercowboy]

Aviationweek blog http://aviationweek.com/blog/inside-rocs-lair.
I heard that Thunderbolt would have its own tracking system like Sea Launch had.  No need for the range and all that associated cost. 

[Jim]

Aviationweek blog http://aviationweek.com/blog/inside-rocs-lair.
I heard that Thunderbolt would have its own tracking system like Sea Launch had.  No need for the range and all that associated cost. 

Sealaunch used TDRSS  and the command ship did launch site tracking.

Stratolaunch will need "range" support where it takes off from.

[matthewkantar]

I have been itching for some photos from inside that huge hanger. I have to say those images are mind boggling. Good luck ROC!

Matthew

[Robotbeat]

Aviationweek blog http://aviationweek.com/blog/inside-rocs-lair.
I heard that Thunderbolt would have its own tracking system like Sea Launch had.  No need for the range and all that associated cost. 

Sealaunch used TDRSS  and the command ship did launch site tracking.

Stratolaunch will need "range" support where it takes off from.

Can they lease the SeaLaunch command ship?

[Danderman]

Aviationweek blog http://aviationweek.com/blog/inside-rocs-lair.
I heard that Thunderbolt would have its own tracking system like Sea Launch had.  No need for the range and all that associated cost. 

Sealaunch used TDRSS  and the command ship did launch site tracking.

Stratolaunch will need "range" support where it takes off from.

What does Pegasus use for range support and tracking?  Is it possible that Orbital ATK will build on that experience?