Stratolaunch: General Company and Development Updates and Discussions

[Space OurSoul]

I hadn't noticed this part before:

"At the end of the press conference, Mr. Griffin held up a poster of his alternative design, stating that use of existing components, only slightly modified, would provide a more reliable system sooner."

I've attached a snipped from a screen capture of the webcast.

[Chris Bergin]

I hadn't noticed this part before:

"At the end of the press conference, Mr. Griffin held up a poster of his alternative design, stating that use of existing components, only slightly modified, would provide a more reliable system sooner."

I've attached a snipped from a screen capture of the webcast.

Eh? I watched the webcast all the way through to it going black and this was not shown. And that doesn't even look like a screen capture. What gives??

[BeanEstimator]

I hadn't noticed this part before:

"At the end of the press conference, Mr. Griffin held up a poster of his alternative design, stating that use of existing components, only slightly modified, would provide a more reliable system sooner."

I've attached a snipped from a screen capture of the webcast.

That's mean...I just spit coffee on my keyboard.  Now I have to clean that stuff up. 

edit to add:  hey chris...it's sarcasm

[tigerade]

This proposal is either insane or brilliant.  I'm betting on insane, but hey I'm not going to tell Paul Allen how to invest his money.  My hope here is that, if this isn't successful, that new technologies are developed that make spaceflight cheaper and more reliable.  It would be a step towards reusability.  This is all going to be pure wait-and-see for the next 5 years.

[kirghizstan]

too bad there isn't a like button for this post

I hadn't noticed this part before:

"At the end of the press conference, Mr. Griffin held up a poster of his alternative design, stating that use of existing components, only slightly modified, would provide a more reliable system sooner."

I've attached a snipped from a screen capture of the webcast.

[Chris Bergin]

hey chris...it's sarcasm

Bazinga!!

Damn!

[deltaV]

- 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.

How about dumping the liquid oxygen if an abort is required? Liquid oxygen is one of the most environmentally friendly things to dump there is!

- 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.

Boeing's 747-100 had a range of 5300 nm in the 1960s. Burt Rutan has successfully designed and built two different three-fuselage aircraft with 26,000 mile range: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rutan_Voyager and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virgin_Atlantic_GlobalFlyer .  I don't understand why you expect a measly range of 2600 miles to challenge Rutan.

[simonbp]

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

Wildthing wins the thread.

KSC does seem the most logical, what with the SLF, payload integration facilities, and existing SpaceX support facilities. And, just because they takeoff from KSC doesn't mean they actually launch in the Atlantic Test Range (i.e. just go off in into international waters), alleviating the range constraints that SpaceX has complained about.

Of course, another option is Korou, which has similar advantages to KSC, but closer to the equator. Or, why not LAX, going out to sea a good bit before launching.

[Rocket Science]

Ah, a side step to my Flyback Falcon concept… hmmm 

[krytek]

So what do you think about the none space launch applications of the plane itself?

[deltaV]

"When Rutan replied that it would never fly, Griffin held up the following other poster"

The 747-8F has a max payload of 0.3 million pounds. The shuttle stack masses about 4.5 million pounds, or about 15 747's worth. Your extremely humorous proposal would require on the order of 60 engines.

[Space Junkie]

This proposal is either insane or brilliant.

I just decided I don't care if it's a good concept or not. I want to see that plane fly!

[Tcommon]

Still don't get it, what am I missing ...

This system has less capability and is more complicated than an F9, and probably more expensive. The advantages are relatively minor.

Maybe Allen wants to launch payload and SpaceX is the cheapest supplier of stages?

Maybe the system is the beginning on a evolutionary design working towards reusability?

Maybe SpaceX is happy for more F5 work, especially with the upgraded merlins, and this is a good way for someone else to pay for it?

[Rocket Science]

So what do you think about the none space launch applications of the plane itself?

I think the a/c as a multi use platform is interesting for both R&D test flights and possibly for a multi-mission military purposes.   

[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.

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?

DIA's international runway was $166 million.  It's roughly the size of the difference between the SLF and the runway at VAFB.

[jimvela]

So what do you think about the none space launch applications of the plane itself?

It would make for a quick and easy way to transport Falcon cores (modified to be slung under it) pretty much anywhere.

Note I didn't say cheap.

[RobLynn]

Advantages:
1/ Pick your orbital inclination.
2/ Save 4-500m/s deltaV
3/ Use vacuum optimised engines with 20-30s higher ISP
4/ Can cruise to up-range launch point to allow easier recovery of booster stages (no boost-back)
5/ Fewer issues with range safety, noise and NIMBYs

Downsides:
1/ lateral fully fuelled g-loading will probably require heavier LV structure.
2/ Big expensive plane to develop and maintain.
3/ Vacuum optimised engines not as good for vertical powered landing.
4/ Potentially huge torsional loads on center wing without a secondary bridging connection at the tail.

Guesses:
1/ Launch LV empty and fuel in-flight to improve safety and reduce lateral stresses on LV and other components as well as perhaps reducing need for LV tank insulation.
2/ Start rockets before release for safety checkout and then while continuing to refuel, use rocket power to enable swoop upwards and acceleration up to near Mach 1 at maximum atltiude

[hop]

Maybe SpaceX is happy for more F5 work, especially with the upgraded merlins, and this is a good way for someone else to pay for it?

There's an interesting question here. The statement in the press conference was that this wouldn't compete with F9, because it was a smaller payload class. Much was made of capturing the Delta II class market. Now, if SpaceX thought there was a big market there, they could just build Falcon 5. So the answer seems to be they didn't think it was worth doing on their own dime, or don't have the cash to try.

[Prober]

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

You wish them to carry a "Liberty" Jim?

[Astromark]

Cool... this even got picked up by local news outlets...

ex: http://www.wral.com/news/science/story/10495959/

But oddly, not by nasaspaceflight.com. Yet.