Stratolaunch: General Company and Development Updates and Discussions

[Jim]

  There are many precedents for large unpiloted aircraft. You Tube has numerous videos of unmanned airliners crashed in US and Mexican deserts for research purposes. The military remotely flies all sorts of outdated aircraft for test and target purposes. A certain unmanned aircraft is currently practicing takeoffs and landings on an aircraft carrier. There are some regulatory hurdles for sure,

The military and NASA are different from a commercial entity. 

[matthewkantar]

The military and NASA are different from a commercial entity.

Hmm. Did not know that.

Matthew

[meekGee]

  There are many precedents for large unpiloted aircraft. You Tube has numerous videos of unmanned airliners crashed in US and Mexican deserts for research purposes. The military remotely flies all sorts of outdated aircraft for test and target purposes. A certain unmanned aircraft is currently practicing takeoffs and landings on an aircraft carrier. There are some regulatory hurdles for sure,

The military and NASA are different from a commercial entity.

... and technology flows from them to the commercial market.  There are not fundamental reasons why not to have an R/C (not even autonomous, mind you) carrier aircraft, and quite a few good ones why to have it so.

That said, this entire enterprise doesn't make sense.  I personally don't like the concept of air-drop (many down sides, few up sides) and definitely don't like the project where not only did they build the carrier before they had a good notion of the rocket, but also they started building the rocket factory before they had a good notion of the rocket.

[Blackstar]

  There are many precedents for large unpiloted aircraft. You Tube has numerous videos of unmanned airliners crashed in US and Mexican deserts for research purposes. The military remotely flies all sorts of outdated aircraft for test and target purposes. A certain unmanned aircraft is currently practicing takeoffs and landings on an aircraft carrier. There are some regulatory hurdles for sure,

The military and NASA are different from a commercial entity.

... and technology flows from them to the commercial market.  There are not fundamental reasons why not to have an R/C (not even autonomous, mind you) carrier aircraft, and quite a few good ones why to have it so.

It's not really a technology issue. It's a regulatory one. And it's a huge regulatory issue. Huge. You have no idea how huge. Huge.

That said, there are provisions for operating uninhabited aircraft (i.e. drones) as experimental vehicles. There are special certificates that operators can get for operating their aircraft. After all, when Lockheed Martin or Aurora develop a new drone, they are a commercial company so they have to have a special operator's certificate. But licensing and certification are tough issues. And they have all kinds of operating restrictions. For instance, they cannot simply fly through national airspace (controlled by FAA, not the military) without all kinds of paperwork. The Air Force and NASA do operate their unmanned aircraft like that, flying Global Hawks all over the place, but they have special exemptions and certificates and lots of experience. Plus, Global Hawk flies so high that it quickly gets above commercial traffic, so FAA is easy to deal with. Any big commercial aircraft operating in the same altitude region as commercial airliners is going to have a lot more hoops to jump through.

Also, there's a big deal with converting an aircraft that were originally designed for human operation to fly without humans. It's not a simple conversion.

[meekGee]

  There are many precedents for large unpiloted aircraft. You Tube has numerous videos of unmanned airliners crashed in US and Mexican deserts for research purposes. The military remotely flies all sorts of outdated aircraft for test and target purposes. A certain unmanned aircraft is currently practicing takeoffs and landings on an aircraft carrier. There are some regulatory hurdles for sure,

The military and NASA are different from a commercial entity.

... and technology flows from them to the commercial market.  There are not fundamental reasons why not to have an R/C (not even autonomous, mind you) carrier aircraft, and quite a few good ones why to have it so.

It's not really a technology issue. It's a regulatory one. And it's a huge regulatory issue. Huge. You have no idea how huge. Huge.

Do you mean it's big?

Seriously though.

Regulation goes with technology.  Further, the FAA makes clear a distinction between scheduled service and one-off flights where there's a cognizant crew.  We're not talking about 10,000 unmanned carriers in the sky at a time, every day.  We're talking about a highly controlled flight, originating at a spaceport, carrying a fueled rocket (that right there requires special permitting, right?) staying away from everyone else and heading out to sea.

Don't blame regulations for it.  The carrier plane is manned for the same reason the VG system is manned.  It is how the principals think.  Their philosophy has always been "simplify it by putting a pilot in it".  I don't agree with them, but that's the why.

[Comga]

Maybe the military wants a carrier aircraft for some “super-size MOAB”... Who really knows...?

That's not a combat-capable aircraft. It's not being built to military specs.

This is no different than the claim years ago that although the commercial justification for Stratolaunch made no sense, so there must be some hidden military justification for it. But nobody can point to any stated military requirement. There's nothing that exists, only civilian amateurs inventing reasons.

Hey!  I resemble that remark!

I did suggest "Glomar Explorer" as a precedent.  However, I have no idea what the military would be after with Stratolaunch.  Of course we in the public had no idea that the Glomar Explorer was going after a Russian sub. 

Some posters have suggested that Paul Allen is a fool, which is both rude and absurd.  Guys like that don't get careless with money, although they can take big risks.  We can guess that either he had some reason to believe that it would work better than others believed, or that its application would tolerate that poorer performance. This could be an unannouced use for its secondary benefits, which include unmonitored launches, on-demand inclination and orbital phase matching, and possibly others.   

What such a use would be is its own mystery.  You can say it does not exist, but that's really hard, probably impossible, to prove, even for someone with extremely broad knowlege and exposure like you.  It's existance can only be proven in the positive, if that was not disallowed. 

[edkyle99]

There doesn't have to be a military requirement for something like this.

http://www.chapman-freeborn.com/blog/antonov-an-225-charter-delivers-outsize-cargo/
http://www.airliners.net/photo/Antonov-Design-Bureau/Antonov-An-225-Mriya/0940209/M/
http://www.airplane-pictures.net/type.php?p=1333&order=views
http://www.airspacemag.com/flight-today/big-idea-485704/?no-ist
http://www.nasa.gov/centers/armstrong/multimedia/imagegallery/Guppy/index.html

and so on.

 - Ed Kyle

[Comga]

There doesn't have to be a military requirement for something like this.

http://www.chapman-freeborn.com/blog/antonov-an-225-charter-delivers-outsize-cargo/
http://www.airliners.net/photo/Antonov-Design-Bureau/Antonov-An-225-Mriya/0940209/M/
http://www.airplane-pictures.net/type.php?p=1333&order=views
http://www.airspacemag.com/flight-today/big-idea-485704/?no-ist
http://www.nasa.gov/centers/armstrong/multimedia/imagegallery/Guppy/index.html

and so on.

 - Ed Kyle

If he just wanted a mega-lifter he could have said he was building a megalifter. 
Why call it "Stratolaunch" if it's a cargo plane?

[baldusi]

There doesn't have to be a military requirement for something like this.

http://www.chapman-freeborn.com/blog/antonov-an-225-charter-delivers-outsize-cargo/
http://www.airliners.net/photo/Antonov-Design-Bureau/Antonov-An-225-Mriya/0940209/M/
http://www.airplane-pictures.net/type.php?p=1333&order=views
http://www.airspacemag.com/flight-today/big-idea-485704/?no-ist
http://www.nasa.gov/centers/armstrong/multimedia/imagegallery/Guppy/index.html

and so on.

 - Ed Kyle

Little nitpick. Antonov-124/225 are, indeed, mil spec.

[edkyle99]

There doesn't have to be a military requirement for something like this.

http://www.chapman-freeborn.com/blog/antonov-an-225-charter-delivers-outsize-cargo/
http://www.airliners.net/photo/Antonov-Design-Bureau/Antonov-An-225-Mriya/0940209/M/
http://www.airplane-pictures.net/type.php?p=1333&order=views
http://www.airspacemag.com/flight-today/big-idea-485704/?no-ist
http://www.nasa.gov/centers/armstrong/multimedia/imagegallery/Guppy/index.html

and so on.

 - Ed Kyle

If he just wanted a mega-lifter he could have said he was building a megalifter. 
Why call it "Stratolaunch" if it's a cargo plane?

Why keep building it if it isn't going to be used for orbital launch?

 - Ed Kyle

[Robotbeat]

Biggest benefit of air launch is probably higher ISP allowed by initial ignition at altitude, in theory.  This only works if the first stage engine is designed to extract the higher ISP, of course, compared to a ground launch.   

 - Ed Kyle

That's relatively easy. Put a bigger engine bell on it.

[Robotbeat]

There doesn't have to be a military requirement for something like this.

http://www.chapman-freeborn.com/blog/antonov-an-225-charter-delivers-outsize-cargo/
http://www.airliners.net/photo/Antonov-Design-Bureau/Antonov-An-225-Mriya/0940209/M/
http://www.airplane-pictures.net/type.php?p=1333&order=views
http://www.airspacemag.com/flight-today/big-idea-485704/?no-ist
http://www.nasa.gov/centers/armstrong/multimedia/imagegallery/Guppy/index.html

and so on.

 - Ed Kyle

If he just wanted a mega-lifter he could have said he was building a megalifter. 
Why call it "Stratolaunch" if it's a cargo plane?

Why keep building it if it isn't going to be used for orbital launch?

 - Ed Kyle

Who said it isn't?

They're evaluating different launch vehicles. I take them at their word.

[hop]

They're evaluating different launch vehicles. I take them at their word.

I do too... to the extent I would any other corporate PR. It's a very safe bet that the public statements put the most positive spin they could manage on it. In PR speak, "evaluating options" is often code for "desperately searching for a way out of this hole", because if you had a more positive story, you'd be using it.

The fact that they have been working with Orbital from the end of 2012 and just recently realized that it was "...not hitting the economic sweet spot to generate revenue..." makes it clear something went badly wrong.

Beyond that, they've now gone through the two most plausible low cost LV providers in the US and can't make their business case close. One might wonder exactly what has them convinced that it can close at all.

Then again, it never made much sense to me. I don't doubt that they could build and fly it, but the supposed advantages don't seem likely to be enough to result in a viable business. I lean toward Blackstars explanation.

edit:
As recently as mid April, they said they were still working with Orbital but considering other LV options http://spacenews.com/stratolaunch-considering-using-multiple-launch-vehicles/ (via yg1968 at the time)

Beames, though, indicated that the company is looking at other launch vehicle options. “What we really want to do is focus on a lower-cost propulsion system that is evolvable in some fashion,”

How did it take them two plus years to decide that? One possible interpretation: The aircraft is costing more than expected, so they want to start with a cheaper LV. It wouldn't be surprising if Allen and co. put a cap on how much they were willing to burn on development.

[R7]

If he just wanted a mega-lifter he could have said he was building a megalifter. 
Why call it "Stratolaunch" if it's a cargo plane?

Because as is it isn't a cargo plane. Real ones have large nice cargo bay, ramps, some even kneeling features to easily load stuff in and out. Roc has specialized attachment point below central wing, there's not much cargo ready to ride in that. Not even rockets it seems.

[R7]

They're evaluating different launch vehicles. I take them at their word.

There's been several evaluatings and thus far they have produced the wrong answer (F9 Air, Pegasus II, Eagles). Did they get it wrong the first time(s), has some new feasible low cost solution emerged since then to provide the right answer or is there right answer at all?

[The Amazing Catstronaut]

I can't imagine how Stratolaunch could be repurposed as a cargo plane - structurally, that's a terrible plan. If it was a colossal helicopter it could have a future as a cargo aircraft.

I believe that they're still trying to find an LV to sling under it. Good luck to them.

[Blackstar]

If he just wanted a mega-lifter he could have said he was building a megalifter. 
Why call it "Stratolaunch" if it's a cargo plane?

Because as is it isn't a cargo plane. Real ones have large nice cargo bay, ramps, some even kneeling features to easily load stuff in and out. Roc has specialized attachment point below central wing, there's not much cargo ready to ride in that. Not even rockets it seems.

Right, the cargo plane claim would carry a little more weight if Stratolaunch had released images of a big cargo pod they want to build, or had at least said that this is what they were thinking about.

What's amusing about this program is that people keep inventing reasons for it to make sense--military missions (even though the DoD has never expressed a requirement or interest in it), or cargo missions (even though there's no indication of that). People keep making excuses for something that doesn't really make sense.

[Blackstar]

I did suggest "Glomar Explorer" as a precedent.  However, I have no idea what the military would be after with Stratolaunch.  Of course we in the public had no idea that the Glomar Explorer was going after a Russian sub. 

Some posters have suggested that Paul Allen is a fool, which is both rude and absurd.  Guys like that don't get careless with money, although they can take big risks.  We can guess that either he had some reason to believe that it would work better than others believed, or that its application would tolerate that poorer performance. This could be an unannouced use for its secondary benefits, which include unmonitored launches, on-demand inclination and orbital phase matching, and possibly others.   

Considering that they've now burned through two rocket providers, doesn't that indicate that they clearly don't have some super secret justification for it? If it looks like a program wandering around in search of purpose, then maybe it is a program wandering around in search of a purpose.

And I don't think Paul Allen is a fool. I think he came up with a big idea without having good market research and engineering evaluation first. That kind of stuff happens a lot in business, and sometimes it pays off, often it doesn't, but usually it is not this high profile. He's also got a lot of money, and when somebody like that tells a bunch of people to "make it happen" they either get caught up in the vision (lots of people have worked on hopeless space projects before, it's the nature of this field) or they calculate how many years they can draw salaries from the project before it gets canceled and decide if it's worth it.

[Oli]

I think it could be very interesting as a launch platform for a point-to-point vehicle.

If not for people or cargo, couldn't the Air Force use a hypersonic bomber?

[Kabloona]

And I don't think Paul Allen is a fool. I think he came up with a big idea without having good market research and engineering evaluation first. That kind of stuff happens a lot in business, and sometimes it pays off, often it doesn't, but usually it is not this high profile. He's also got a lot of money, and when somebody like that tells a bunch of people to "make it happen" they either get caught up in the vision (lots of people have worked on hopeless space projects before, it's the nature of this field) or they calculate how many years they can draw salaries from the project before it gets canceled and decide if it's worth it.

Seems to me this is the most likely explanation. He looked for a niche no one else was occupying, and someone had the idea of a super-sized Pegasus, perhaps (and it seems to me probably) without availing themselves of the lessons learned by the people who actually built and flew Pegasus.