Stratolaunch: General Company and Development Updates and Discussions

[CameronD]

Let's suppose the rocket do not use RP-1 but JP-5 kerosene, like the 747 engines used by the Roc carrier aircraft. 

How about transfering jet engine propellants from the aircraft to the rocket just before launch ?

Assuming it is true that they are planning to use AVCAT in the Roc's engines (why?!?  ) and assuming you can transfer it to the rocket prior to launch, I for one am not convinced it would be a suitable fuel for the mission profiles they're proposing for the rockets.

Your average 747 has quite a few different fuel tanks already (roughly 250,000 litres worth) and this thing is big enough that there must be somewhere they could fit another tank in someplace, for both fuelling the rocket and for use by the aircraft in an emergency, and load it with proper RP-1 instead of compromising the rocket's performance by using an inferior propellant.
 

[Zed_Noir]

Let's suppose the rocket do not use RP-1 but JP-5 kerosene, like the 747 engines used by the Roc carrier aircraft. 

How about transfering jet engine propellants from the aircraft to the rocket just before launch ?

Assuming it is true that they are planning to use AVCAT in the Roc's engines (why?!?  ) and assuming you can transfer it to the rocket prior to launch, I for one am not convinced it would be a suitable fuel for the mission profiles they're proposing for the rockets.

Your average 747 has quite a few different fuel tanks already (roughly 250,000 litres worth) and this thing is big enough that there must be somewhere they could fit another tank in someplace, for both fuelling the rocket and for use by the aircraft in an emergency, and load it with proper RP-1 instead of compromising the rocket's performance by using an inferior propellant.

They are not using the 747 airframes AIUI. Instead, is using brand new composite airframe. So the tankage figures for the 747 doesn't applied for the Roc carrier aircraft..

[RonM]

Let's suppose the rocket do not use RP-1 but JP-5 kerosene, like the 747 engines used by the Roc carrier aircraft. 

How about transfering jet engine propellants from the aircraft to the rocket just before launch ?

Assuming it is true that they are planning to use AVCAT in the Roc's engines (why?!?  ) and assuming you can transfer it to the rocket prior to launch, I for one am not convinced it would be a suitable fuel for the mission profiles they're proposing for the rockets.

Your average 747 has quite a few different fuel tanks already (roughly 250,000 litres worth) and this thing is big enough that there must be somewhere they could fit another tank in someplace, for both fuelling the rocket and for use by the aircraft in an emergency, and load it with proper RP-1 instead of compromising the rocket's performance by using an inferior propellant.

They are not using the 747 airframes AIUI. Instead, is using brand new composite airframe. So the tankage figures for the 747 doesn't applied for the Roc carrier aircraft..

Fuel tanks are in the wings. Isn't Roc using the 747 wings?

[Zed_Noir]

Let's suppose the rocket do not use RP-1 but JP-5 kerosene, like the 747 engines used by the Roc carrier aircraft. 

How about transfering jet engine propellants from the aircraft to the rocket just before launch ?

Assuming it is true that they are planning to use AVCAT in the Roc's engines (why?!?  ) and assuming you can transfer it to the rocket prior to launch, I for one am not convinced it would be a suitable fuel for the mission profiles they're proposing for the rockets.

Your average 747 has quite a few different fuel tanks already (roughly 250,000 litres worth) and this thing is big enough that there must be somewhere they could fit another tank in someplace, for both fuelling the rocket and for use by the aircraft in an emergency, and load it with proper RP-1 instead of compromising the rocket's performance by using an inferior propellant.

They are not using the 747 airframes AIUI. Instead, is using brand new composite airframe. So the tankage figures for the 747 doesn't applied for the Roc carrier aircraft..

Fuel tanks are in the wings. Isn't Roc using the 747 wings?

No. Illustration of the Roc from the Scaled Composite web site. AFAIK the 747 wings are mounted on the bottom of the fuselage and swept back for high speed flight. The Roc's wings doesn't look like that at all.

[yg1968]

Some changes at the company:

http://www.geekwire.com/2016/charles-beames-leaves-top-post-vulcan-aerospace-jean-floyd-expands-role/

[Katana]

It's still used in a current LV--to drive the Soyuz first and second stage turbopumps.

In 70% concentration only, safer yet useable for turbines. 30% loss in turbine power density only loss 1~2% isp

[Navier–Stokes]

Orbital ATK and Stratolaunch Systems Partner to Offer Competitive Space Launch Opportunities

Orbital ATK, Inc. (NYSE:OA), a global leader in aerospace and defense technologies, and Stratolaunch Systems today announced a multi-year production-based partnership that will offer significant cost advantages to air-launch customers.

Orbital ATK will initially provide multiple Pegasus XL air-launch vehicles for use with the Stratolaunch aircraft to provide customers with unparalleled flexibility to launch small satellites weighing up to 1,000 pounds into low Earth orbit

“Orbital ATK is excited by this collaboration and sees it as a positive first step in a long-term partnership,” said Scott Lehr, president of Orbital ATK’s Flight Systems Group.

So Stratolaunch will initially use an existing air launch vehicle (Pegasus XL). Hopefully, the multi-year  agreement will be able to significantly drive down the production cost of Pegasus so it can be competitive.

The press release also strongly implies that Orbital ATK will develop a new air launch vehicle for Stratolaunch sometime in the future. 

[Welsh Dragon]

So that's the third (?) rocket they've planned? The Falcon Air, then that weird thing with the SRB segments and the two RL10s and now the Pegasus? How often has Pegasus launched recently? Now they're planning on launching THREE at a time? Colour me sceptical.

I guess if, like the above poster suggests, long term development with OrbATK is on the books, it could still be the SRB/RL10 contraption?

[Dante80]

This is terrific news. But a question.

I may be a little thick in the head, but when/why would anyone want to launch 3 LVs at the same time/mission? Are they hinting at an ALBM concept, or do they want to bombard SSO?

[Kabloona]

This is terrific news. But a question.

I may be a little thick in the head, but when/why would anyone want to launch 3 LVs at the same time/mission? Are they hinting at an ALBM concept, or do they want to bombard SSO?

I'm wondering the same thing. Trying to launch 3 at the same time makes it 3x as likely that you can't take off on any given day, since you now have 3x the LV + payload systems to malfunction. So the other 2 LV's are sitting around waiting, taking up hangar space while you try to troubleshoot the 3rd LV, when you could just go ahead and launch the one or two vehicles that are ready. With a smaller, cheaper airframe. Like, say, an L1011.

Unless there's a compelling "other" reason, the answer may be "because we can."

[Welsh Dragon]

Unless there's a compelling "other" reason, the answer may be "because we can."

"Because we're already halfway through building this massive carrier plane and we have to use the carrying capacity somehow"?

[Archibald]

This is just stupid. Scratch my head in disblief.

I'd say they have nobody wanting to stuck a new rocket behind their giant aircraft, so they quickly checked "what rockets are currently air-launched ?" and the search brought "Pegasus" only
So they said "hey, just let stack a bunch of Pegasus until we reached Roc payload of 500 000 pounds.

According to Wikipedia a Pegasus XL mass 24 metric tons, Roc may carry 250 tons, so that should be enough to carry TEN Pegasus (not three, damn it !)

How about a rotary launcher akin to the B-1B  ?


Or strap all these Pegasus under that giant wing, mk-82 style.

[Lars-J]

This project is turning into a textbook case of the dangers of the "sunk cost fallacy".

[Kabloona]

Maybe they can also use it for delivering Amazon boxes. They should be able to carry at least 3 at a time.

[Eerie]

Who cares if it's stupid? This thing is awesome! Can it launch ICMBs? USA should start patrolling the borders of Russia with it, put some fear of god in dem commies! 

[HMXHMX]

This project is turning into a textbook case of the dangers of the "sunk cost fallacy".

Brings to mind Shakespeare's closing in Henry V: 

"This star of England: Fortune made his sword;
By which the world's best garden be achieved,
And of it left his son imperial lord.
Henry the Sixth, in infant bands crown'd King
Of France and England, did this king succeed;
Whose state so many had the managing,
That they lost France and made his England bleed:
Which oft our stage hath shown; and, for their sake,
In your fair minds let this acceptance take."

Stratolaunch has had a bit too much managing and not enough doing...

[Skyrocket]

Somehow this makes no sense to me, especially as Pegasus has now a pretty low launch rate of one every few years.

[sdsds]

It must have something to do with the mysterious customer looking for the capability to rapidly replace or augment its on-orbit assets. That customer doesn't have degraded assets today, mind you. But if they put out an emergency call they don't want to wait 153 days (DMSP, 3 February 1988) to launch the replacement. So they're willing to pay now out of their black (or at least dark) budget for development of capabilities....

[Skyrocket]

It must have something to do with the mysterious customer looking for the capability to rapidly replace or augment its on-orbit assets. That customer doesn't have degraded assets today, mind you. But if they put out an emergency call they don't want to wait 153 days (DMSP, 3 February 1988) to launch the replacement. So they're willing to pay now out of their black (or at least dark) budget for development of capabilities....

But rapidly replacing usually does not require salvo launches. If Pegasus provides the capability of stand-by launches, then launching one Pegasus at one time when needed should be better than waiting until three launches are needed.

[Lars-J]

It must have something to do with the mysterious customer looking for the capability to rapidly replace or augment its on-orbit assets. That customer doesn't have degraded assets today, mind you. But if they put out an emergency call they don't want to wait 153 days (DMSP, 3 February 1988) to launch the replacement. So they're willing to pay now out of their black (or at least dark) budget for development of capabilities....

Occam's razor suggests that there is no such mystery customer. Somebody simply wanted to have the biggest plane ever, and launch rockets from it, so they built the plane. Now they don't even have a launch vehicle at all, so they are grasping for straws ... anything that can be air launched, no matter how small.