Stratolaunch: General Company and Development Updates and Discussions

[Coastal Ron]

They believe that there is a market for rapid access to space. Nobody has acheived rapid access to space. So they are competing against every one else that has yet to acheive that (including SpaceX).

Sure, rapid access to a number of orbital latitudes.  But who is the customer for such a need?  I'd be more excited if I understood the value proposition more.  Because as of today I'm only getting excited about the hardware, not the capability, but I really, really, really want there to be a capability to get excited about.

[Steam Chaser]

Incidentally, the most important part of Stratolaunch's statement is this one:

To best serve the variety of space operators with more convenient and less expensive options, we envision affording the satellite operator multiple launch vehicle options with varying payload capabilities.

http://spacenews.com/stratolaunch-backer-says-it-remains-committed-to-transforming-space-launch/

One way Vulcan and/or Stratolaunch could get involved with smaller launch vehicle options would be to start some sort of partnership with Virgin Galactic and their Launcher One.

[Nomadd]

They believe that there is a market for rapid access to space. Nobody has acheived rapid access to space. So they are competing against every one else that has yet to acheive that (including SpaceX).

Sure, rapid access to a number of orbital latitudes.  But who is the customer for such a need? 

US government needing an asset over a particular area in a hurry.

[Prober]

They believe that there is a market for rapid access to space. Nobody has acheived rapid access to space. So they are competing against every one else that has yet to acheive that (including SpaceX).

Sure, rapid access to a number of orbital latitudes.  But who is the customer for such a need? 

US government needing an asset over a particular area in a hurry.

they should have partnered and bid on quick cargo to ISS, that might have worked.

[AstroBrewer]

They believe that there is a market for rapid access to space. Nobody has acheived rapid access to space. So they are competing against every one else that has yet to acheive that (including SpaceX).

I am struggling to understand how the air launch concept is any more rapid than traditional launchers.  Moving a rocket to a fixed launch pad seems to me like it would be easier and more rapid than putting one on an airplane.  I don't see any reason why the air launch approach should give any savings in pre-launch processing time as compared to ground launch.  Am I missing something? 

[yg1968]

They believe that there is a market for rapid access to space. Nobody has acheived rapid access to space. So they are competing against every one else that has yet to acheive that (including SpaceX).

I am struggling to understand how the air launch concept is any more rapid than traditional launchers.  Moving a rocket to a fixed launch pad seems to me like it would be easier and more rapid than putting one on an airplane.  I don't see any reason why the air launch approach should give any savings in pre-launch processing time as compared to ground launch.  Am I missing something?

You are not subject to the same weather constraints. More orbital latitudes are available as mentionned above. In any event, the point is they think that they can be competitive with everyone else (including SpaceX). You don't enter a market if you know that you are not going to be competive. Part of being competitive is the rapid reusability of their plane. Orbital was dropped because it would have been too expensive. It's mentioned above that they were looking at 70 different variations for their LV. I imagine that some of these will be competitive.

[JasonAW3]

They believe that there is a market for rapid access to space. Nobody has acheived rapid access to space. So they are competing against every one else that has yet to acheive that (including SpaceX).

I am struggling to understand how the air launch concept is any more rapid than traditional launchers.  Moving a rocket to a fixed launch pad seems to me like it would be easier and more rapid than putting one on an airplane.  I don't see any reason why the air launch approach should give any savings in pre-launch processing time as compared to ground launch.  Am I missing something?

Part of the problem with a fixed launcher position is timing for orbits, as well as orbital inclinations.  With a mobile platform like a plane the launch window becomes vastly larger and orbital inclinations are only a problem of where the booster will splash down. (You don't want it over land, unless of course you figuire out some sort of a magical recoverable orbital booster system).

With a plane, you can go from equatorial all the way through polar orbital inclinations.

Timing can be mostly resolved with storable solid or hybrid boosters, and a ready reserve of orbital craft or satillite devivery stages.

[pippin]

Bringing a new launch vehicle to market takes time.  SpaceX wasn't born in a day either.

It's interesting to compare Stratolaunch and SpaceX.

Paul Allen has plenty of money to build out what he wants to build out, but the market he is entering is non-obvious.  Who are the customers, and how much business is there?

SpaceX didn't have plenty of money, but they were entering a very large and mature market, and would be offering a price point that would make them very attractive to customers.

Personally I think it's great that Paul Allen is risking his money to see if he can find a business model that works.  And I hope he does succeed, since that should result in overall increased activity in space which should benefit everyone in space related industries.

But I know for me I can't get excited yet because I don't understand the market Stratolaunch is going into.  With SpaceX it was clear.  So maybe I'm hesitating in being emotionally invested because I'm not sure whether it will pay off?  And defending something that is exciting, but has no known business case, is not what I normally do?

#conflictingemotions

Even SpaceX initially erred on the target market. The small sat market they initially aimed at never materialized and hadn't NASA at the time coincidentally created COTS they probably would no longer be around.
Sometimes it's just perseverance and sheer luck that distinguishes the successful from the failed projects. Because a good plan and good technology often simply is not enough.
Stratolaunch doesn't even seem to have too convincing a plan and they planned to outsource the tech part so they have nothing there as well (SpaceX could at least have become an engine manufacturer had they failed), they will need a lot of luck to succeed.

[Coastal Ron]

They believe that there is a market for rapid access to space. Nobody has acheived rapid access to space. So they are competing against every one else that has yet to acheive that (including SpaceX).

Sure, rapid access to a number of orbital latitudes.  But who is the customer for such a need? 

US government needing an asset over a particular area in a hurry.

OK, but are they existing assets (and if so how are they getting to space today), or are they new assets (are they funded, how many, and when are they ready?).

[Nomadd]

They believe that there is a market for rapid access to space. Nobody has acheived rapid access to space. So they are competing against every one else that has yet to acheive that (including SpaceX).

Sure, rapid access to a number of orbital latitudes.  But who is the customer for such a need? 

US government needing an asset over a particular area in a hurry.

OK, but are they existing assets (and if so how are they getting to space today), or are they new assets (are they funded, how many, and when are they ready?).

New, I'd imagine. It use to be different. Companies would propose and actually build hardware in order to pitch something to the government and not just wait for projects to come down the line. The government has never come up with a cheap, standardized set of hardware because launching was so expensive, and the idea that a government run program could change that is pretty funny. But, if Stratolaunch can offer the service, maybe the demand will follow. It's risky, but what else does Paul Allen have to do?

[Coastal Ron]

But, if Stratolaunch can offer the service, maybe the demand will follow. It's risky, but what else does Paul Allen have to do?

I'm OK with risk, and SpaceX will be trying to do the same (to a certain degree) with their reusable Falcon 9.  But whereas with SpaceX they can continue launching expendable Falcon 9's in order to generate revenue while the less expensive hardware/business models get developed, it's not obvious to me that Stratolaunch has anything to do while new hardware/business models get developed.

And again, I will be thrilled to watch the first flight of the Statolaunch carrier aircraft... I just hope it isn't it's last too, like the Spruce Goose.

[edkyle99]

I am struggling to understand how the air launch concept is any more rapid than traditional launchers.  Moving a rocket to a fixed launch pad seems to me like it would be easier and more rapid than putting one on an airplane.  I don't see any reason why the air launch approach should give any savings in pre-launch processing time as compared to ground launch.  Am I missing something? 

If the carrier aircraft could find the right home, it would be possible to launch to every type of orbit from that single site.  Only one hangar, one payload processing facility, one set of employees would be needed.  ULA and SpaceX must maintain launch sites on both coasts to get to sun synchronous and other orbits not possible from Florida.

 - Ed Kyle

[Asteroza]

Yes, but what airports near the equator have the necessary runway length/strength, and where's your range control/monitoring associated with that? That aren't run by a competitor or a government that needs "facilitation fees"?

[jongoff]

Yes, but what airports near the equator have the necessary runway length/strength, and where's your range control/monitoring associated with that? That aren't run by a competitor or a government that needs "facilitation fees"?

One of the useful things likely to come out of DARPA's ALASA project, even if the project itself fails, is work they're doing on autonomous range-safety. Air-launch while using traditional ranges really kills one of the key flexibility advantages, so DARPA's funding work on range safety that doesn't require ground facilities. IIRC, they're using a combination of GPS and satellite communications (and possibly one or two other items) to enable flying and launching from literally anywhere.

The issue of airstrips long enough near the equator is a legit question though.

To me, being able to launch into a wide range of inclinations is not as important as the ability to do phasing to guarantee first-orbit rendezvous.

~Jon

[Lars-J]

To me, being able to launch into a wide range of inclinations is not as important as the ability to do phasing to guarantee first-orbit rendezvous.

~Jon

But if you aren't launching humans (and Stratolaunch seems far away from that), then that is not nearly as important - right?

[a_langwich]

One of the useful things likely to come out of DARPA's ALASA project, even if the project itself fails, is work they're doing on autonomous range-safety. Air-launch while using traditional ranges really kills one of the key flexibility advantages, so DARPA's funding work on range safety that doesn't require ground facilities. IIRC, they're using a combination of GPS and satellite communications (and possibly one or two other items) to enable flying and launching from literally anywhere.

Is that similar to the autonomous range capabilities SpaceX was trying to convince the Air Force to accept? 
Satellite telemetry, or some other telemetry method not based on fixed tracking stations, would be quite useful for all launch ranges.  Not just that, but as I recall the hypersonic vehicle tests suffered a lot of complications due to telemetry/tracking issues.   

[joek]

One of the useful things likely to come out of DARPA's ALASA project, even if the project itself fails, is work they're doing on autonomous range-safety. Air-launch while using traditional ranges really kills one of the key flexibility advantages, so DARPA's funding work on range safety that doesn't require ground facilities. IIRC, they're using a combination of GPS and satellite communications (and possibly one or two other items) to enable flying and launching from literally anywhere.

Is that similar to the autonomous range capabilities SpaceX was trying to convince the Air Force to accept? 
Satellite telemetry, or some other telemetry method not based on fixed tracking stations, would be quite useful for all launch ranges.  Not just that, but as I recall the hypersonic vehicle tests suffered a lot of complications due to telemetry/tracking issues.

SpaceX did not need to convince the USAF that autonomous range safety capabilities (specifically autonomous FTS) is desirable.  It has been in the works for some time, and last indication was that we might see it on a commercial flight in 2016.

[edkyle99]

Yes, but what airports near the equator have the necessary runway length/strength, and where's your range control/monitoring associated with that? That aren't run by a competitor or a government that needs "facilitation fees"?

The airport doesn't have to be near the equator.  Flying from KSC, for example, it might be possible to fly far enough east to allow for polar orbit azimuths.   GTO missions could fly from the same runway.  There might be some ex-SAC runway somewhere closer to the equator that could be a candidate. 

 - Ed Kyle

[Prober]

Paul Allen should sit down with Bezo's and maybe Stratolaunch could drop a new Shepard launcher

Could get a decent payload to orbit.

[Todd Martin]

Paul Allen should sit down with Bezo's and maybe Stratolaunch could drop a new Shepard launcher

Could get a decent payload to orbit.

New Shephard is too small to reach orbital velocity, even launched from the Stratolaunch carrier.  If New Shephard was scaled up by a factor of 5, then it could do as you suggest.  Since there are few potential rocket partners, I'm sure there have been phone calls.