Stratolaunch: General Company and Development Updates and Discussions

[ChrisWilson68]

Jeff Foust @jeff_foust

Steve Nixon, Stratolaunch: think there might be interest in natl security community in launching 3 Pegasus rockets at a time from our plane.

https://mobile.twitter.com/jeff_foust/status/877612831155335169

If for some reason these national security payloads for said rockets need to be air launched, it stands to reason that it would be cheaper to use Pegasus LVs launching from Orbital's L-1011 than the custom one-off Stratolaunch plane. If all three need to be launched separately, you could do one a piece from the L-1011 and the others from the wing pylons on B-52s, as was done with the first few Pegasus launches.

If these payloads could be launched together on a single vehicle, Pegasus makes even less sense. ICON, which is supposed to launch on a Pegasus in November, has a launch cost of $56.3 million. If there are three Pegasus' worth of satellites that are going up at the same time, it would be cheaper to use an Atlas V.

If Musk can deliver on his 24-hour turn-around time for reflying Falcon 9 first stages (including both the stage turn-around time and the pad turn-around time), then stockpiling some F9 upper stages for emergency launches could make a lot more financial sense than stockpiling Pegasus vehicles or any other air-launched expendable vehicles for the responsive launch role.

[Star One]

Jeff Foust @jeff_foust

Steve Nixon, Stratolaunch: think there might be interest in natl security community in launching 3 Pegasus rockets at a time from our plane.

https://mobile.twitter.com/jeff_foust/status/877612831155335169

If for some reason these national security payloads for said rockets need to be air launched, it stands to reason that it would be cheaper to use Pegasus LVs launching from Orbital's L-1011 than the custom one-off Stratolaunch plane. If all three need to be launched separately, you could do one a piece from the L-1011 and the others from the wing pylons on B-52s, as was done with the first few Pegasus launches.

If these payloads could be launched together on a single vehicle, Pegasus makes even less sense. ICON, which is supposed to launch on a Pegasus in November, has a launch cost of $56.3 million. If there are three Pegasus' worth of satellites that are going up at the same time, it would be cheaper to use an Atlas V.

If Musk can deliver on his 24-hour turn-around time for reflying Falcon 9 first stages (including both the stage turn-around time and the pad turn-around time), then stockpiling some F9 upper stages for emergency launches could make a lot more financial sense than stockpiling Pegasus vehicles or any other air-launched expendable vehicles for the responsive launch role.

It depends if you buy into that particular statement, I for one don't and it seems more like a typical example of 'Musk talk' than anything else.

[Hobbes-22]

If for some reason these national security payloads for said rockets need to be air launched, it stands to reason that it would be cheaper to use Pegasus LVs launching from Orbital's L-1011 than the custom one-off Stratolaunch plane.

Orbital's L-1011 is one of the last ~5 Tristars still flying, so maintenance cost will be high. The Stratolaunch OTOH may be unique, but uses lots of off-the shelf components from the Boeing 747, which is in use in large numbers. I wouldn't be surprised of the Stratolaunch is cheaper to run than the L-1011.

[Star One]

And here's the Space News article.

Smallsats promoted as “insurance” for national security space systems

http://spacenews.com/smallsat-systems-promoted-as-insurance-for-national-security-space-systems/

[ChrisWilson68]

And here's the Space News article.

Smallsats promoted as “insurance” for national security space systems

http://spacenews.com/smallsat-systems-promoted-as-insurance-for-national-security-space-systems/

A lot of over-the top claims from Stratolaunch there.  It seems kind of desperate to me.

The whole three-Pegasus-in-one-launch idea seems like an attempt to justify using this enormous aircraft that they have already built.  It was designed to launch a much larger payload, that's why it's big, not because there's actually a reason to launch three Pegasus vehicles on one flight.

Stratolaunch's Nixon is claiming that for 1% of what the U.S. spends on national security space, they could get an insurance policy by duplicating all that capability with small satellites.  It's ridiculous.  It's a transparent attempt to get the government to bail out Stratolaunch.  They don't really have a business, so they want to get the government to spend a huge amount on something tailored to what Stratolaunch has already invested in.

If the U.S. can duplicate the functionality with 1% of the cost, why didn't they just spend 1% in the first place?  The idea that 1% more spending will duplicate the capability implies that the government is spending 100 times too much for all national security space spending.  I could believe that the government is wasteful, but there's just no reason to believe it's a factor of 100 over all national security space.

If nothing else, spy satellites simply can't be shrunken into small satellites.  They need large optical systems to get close-up views.  Otherwise, we'd be able to replace Hubble with a small satellite.

[whitelancer64]

Yeah, they really can't reduce the size of optical spy sats, but sats that don't need to house a huge mirror (say weather sats, communication sats, etc.) can be made smaller.

[ChrisWilson68]

Yeah, they really can't reduce the size of optical spy sats, but sats that don't need to house a huge mirror (say weather sats, communication sats, etc.) can be made smaller.

I agree.  I suspect there is useful functionality that the military currently has on a small number of huge, expensive satellites that could be moved to more, small, cheap satellites, and it would be a win in a number of ways, including cost and resistance to attack.

I just think that Stratolaunch's Nixon is greatly overstating the case in claiming that for 1% of the cost all the functionality could be duplicated.  A lot of the functionality is secret and Nixon has no way to even know what the functionality is, let alone be in a position to know what could be put on small satelites.

[SweetWater]

If for some reason these national security payloads for said rockets need to be air launched, it stands to reason that it would be cheaper to use Pegasus LVs launching from Orbital's L-1011 than the custom one-off Stratolaunch plane.

Orbital's L-1011 is one of the last ~5 Tristars still flying, so maintenance cost will be high. The Stratolaunch OTOH may be unique, but uses lots of off-the shelf components from the Boeing 747, which is in use in large numbers. I wouldn't be surprised of the Stratolaunch is cheaper to run than the L-1011.

Sorry - My original statement may have been unclear. I understand what you're saying about maintenance costs, and I'm sure that replacement parts, etc. for the L-1011 are harder to come by than for the 747 components Stratolaunch is using. What I intended to express was that the L-1011 has been bought (used, IIRC) and paid for; Stratolaunch developed a new aircraft. If we include costs to covert the L-1011 for air-launch vs. development costs for Stratolaunch, I don't see how Stratolaunch comes out ahead, if if we acknowledge that maintenance costs for Orbital probably aren't cheap.

[LastStarFighter]

If for some reason these national security payloads for said rockets need to be air launched, it stands to reason that it would be cheaper to use Pegasus LVs launching from Orbital's L-1011 than the custom one-off Stratolaunch plane.

Orbital's L-1011 is one of the last ~5 Tristars still flying, so maintenance cost will be high. The Stratolaunch OTOH may be unique, but uses lots of off-the shelf components from the Boeing 747, which is in use in large numbers. I wouldn't be surprised of the Stratolaunch is cheaper to run than the L-1011.

Sorry - My original statement may have been unclear. I understand what you're saying about maintenance costs, and I'm sure that replacement parts, etc. for the L-1011 are harder to come by than for the 747 components Stratolaunch is using. What I intended to express was that the L-1011 has been bought (used, IIRC) and paid for; Stratolaunch developed a new aircraft. If we include costs to covert the L-1011 for air-launch vs. development costs for Stratolaunch, I don't see how Stratolaunch comes out ahead, if if we acknowledge that maintenance costs for Orbital probably aren't cheap.

You make the assumption that Paul Allen wants to directly recoup the developlment costs of building the Stratolauncher. My guess is that he's very much like Bezos and just wants to make it and is willing to spend the money without a solid plan to recoup it. Just my opinion though.

[Lars-J]

...or he has lost interest, and is seeking investment to get as much $$$ back as he can.

[Robotbeat]

...or he has lost interest, and is seeking investment to get as much $$$ back as he can.

I disagree. A successful Stratolaunch, even if it doesn't pay for its startup cost, would cement Allen's legacy as the guy who bankrolled the biggest airplane ever.

[meekGee]

Jeff Foust @jeff_foust

Steve Nixon, Stratolaunch: think there might be interest in natl security community in launching 3 Pegasus rockets at a time from our plane.

https://mobile.twitter.com/jeff_foust/status/877612831155335169

If for some reason these national security payloads for said rockets need to be air launched, it stands to reason that it would be cheaper to use Pegasus LVs launching from Orbital's L-1011 than the custom one-off Stratolaunch plane. If all three need to be launched separately, you could do one a piece from the L-1011 and the others from the wing pylons on B-52s, as was done with the first few Pegasus launches.

If these payloads could be launched together on a single vehicle, Pegasus makes even less sense. ICON, which is supposed to launch on a Pegasus in November, has a launch cost of $56.3 million. If there are three Pegasus' worth of satellites that are going up at the same time, it would be cheaper to use an Atlas V.

If Musk can deliver on his 24-hour turn-around time for reflying Falcon 9 first stages (including both the stage turn-around time and the pad turn-around time), then stockpiling some F9 upper stages for emergency launches could make a lot more financial sense than stockpiling Pegasus vehicles or any other air-launched expendable vehicles for the responsive launch role.

You can stock-pile the F9s after the turn-around work.

Then it's just payload integration time.

And you don't even have to "Stock pile them" - they can be part of the rotation - just make sure the pipeline is not empty.

[meekGee]

...or he has lost interest, and is seeking investment to get as much $$$ back as he can.

I disagree. A successful Stratolaunch, even if it doesn't pay for its startup cost, would cement Allen's legacy as the guy who bankrolled the biggest airplane ever.

Along the guys who bankrolled the largest electricity futures trading company (or something like that) ever.

I think he's realizing that advice he's relied upon may not have been reliable.

[Lars-J]

...or he has lost interest, and is seeking investment to get as much $$$ back as he can.

I disagree. A successful Stratolaunch, even if it doesn't pay for its startup cost, would cement Allen's legacy as the guy who bankrolled the biggest airplane ever.

Along the guys who bankrolled the largest electricity futures trading company (or something like that) ever.

I think he's realizing that advice he's relied upon may not have been reliable.

Exactly. I can't imagine this project has gone anywhere like he wanted it to. He wanted to be another Musk or Bezos, but instead just got the largest plane ever. And so what?

Even if it flies, I predict it will only do so a few times. I don't think it will ever be used for a rocket launch, its only hope of a useful life is to find some other transport usefulness.

[Danderman]

I was privy to some conversations about this project more than 15 years ago, and at that time, the consensus was that the rocket part was simply justification for the airplane, which was the real purpose of the project, apparently, they thought that there would be a market for a really big transport.

Knowing the relative success of the AN-225 would be useful in understanding this project.

[Zed_Noir]

I was privy to some conversations about this project more than 15 years ago, and at that time, the consensus was that the rocket part was simply justification for the airplane, which was the real purpose of the project, apparently, they thought that there would be a market for a really big transport.

Knowing the relative success of the AN-225 would be useful in understanding this project.

Considering the low thrust rating of the current used tubrofans on the Roc in comparison to the ones on the 777 and the A380. Refitting the Roc with those more powerful engines will improved the maximum payload and flight performances. Maybe even higher operating ceiling for space launches. But more powerful engines will definitely decease the time required to climb to launch operations altitude.

[ChrisWilson68]

I was privy to some conversations about this project more than 15 years ago, and at that time, the consensus was that the rocket part was simply justification for the airplane, which was the real purpose of the project, apparently, they thought that there would be a market for a really big transport.

Knowing the relative success of the AN-225 would be useful in understanding this project.

Considering the low thrust rating of the current used tubrofans on the the Roc in comparison to the ones on the 777 and the A380. Refitting the Roc with those more powerful engines will improved the maximum payload and flight performances. Maybe even higher operating ceiling for space launches. But more powerful engines will definitely decease the time required to climb to launch operations altitude.

Assuming the Roc airframe can even handle the higher thrust.

[meekGee]

I was privy to some conversations about this project more than 15 years ago, and at that time, the consensus was that the rocket part was simply justification for the airplane, which was the real purpose of the project, apparently, they thought that there would be a market for a really big transport.

Knowing the relative success of the AN-225 would be useful in understanding this project.

That sounds like such an odd business venture to get into.

No glory, speculative, and a limited financial upside.

I guess if you have the money, why not.

[FutureSpaceTourist]

Dr. Heather Wilson‏ Verified account @SecAFOfficial 5h5 hours ago

Today I had the chance to see firsthand how @Stratolaunch is developing an air-launch platform to make space more accessible #innovation

https://twitter.com/SecAFOfficial/status/887164577850552320

[john smith 19]

The whole three-Pegasus-in-one-launch idea seems like an attempt to justify using this enormous aircraft that they have already built.  It was designed to launch a much larger payload, that's why it's big, not because there's actually a reason to launch three Pegasus vehicles on one flight.

IIRC Pegasus XL is the most expensive ELV in terms of $/lb to orbit.

If a significant chunk of that is due to the carrier aircraft then launching more of them in one flight (if you can) makes a certain kind of sense.

Likewise retiring the Lockheed aircraft might also be the sensible move, given its age.

If nothing else, spy satellites simply can't be shrunken into small satellites.  They need large optical systems to get close-up views.  Otherwise, we'd be able to replace Hubble with a small satellite.

Optical satellites, maybe.

However techniques to deploy large antenna from small(ish) satellites have been around since the 80's.

Historically US NSS payloads have been very large, long lived multi function satellites.  Because that capability has been available (allowing for a substantial lead time) relatively little effort has been spent on alternative strategies, like smaller secondary payload sized single purpose satellites, or the use of swarms to construct an larger "virtual" satellite.

 As a stop-gap measure it would be possible to field single function, short lived satellites to replace one of those $Bn+ payloads  in the event of damage.

What I've not seen any discussion of is how you'll carry and launch 3 of these from the same aircraft.


BTW While VG's sub orbital efforts seem to have made slow progress I note that their carrier aircraft White Knight II seems to have been flying quite regularly, testing various aerospace systems.

I don't know about it's future as the first stage of an ELV but I think it's future as a carrier of "big stuff" is potentially quite bright.