Stratolaunch: General Company and Development Updates and Discussions

[Namechange User]

Its cool, but the question becomes, to where and how often?
It seems to me that the smart thing for Allen and other billionaires would be to invest into Bigelow or IDC Dover and get a private space station up there along with ONE human launch company. And that needs to be ASAP.

once you have at least one private space station up there along with a human launcher, then you will have loads of competition to drop the prices. Without it, then all of the various launchers are chasing the same dollars and it will not be enough.

What the hell?  Why do so many refuse to address this question with government-funded "commercial" but then when someone decides to spend their own money, for something truly commercial, then everyone decides to find religion?  And then people say instead how they should spend *their* money.

It is as simple as this.  A business case has been assessed for this concept.  ROM numbers have been created to show what the ROI is (under "normal" assumptions and then "worse-case" and "best-case" assumptions) versus the investment required to bring it to fruition.  The investor, Paul Allen (and maybe others), has determined this to be worth their time. 

As to checking ROIs etc, you obviously have not tuned into Allen's previous work.  He was the person predominately responsible for pushing cable into the internet (think allen's original backing of SC's SS1 or Musk's creation of Tesla and the impact on electric cars). Allen backed it by creating Charter to expand this.  He is obviously doing the same thing here. 

My earlier posting was hazarding a SWAG that he will be spending more down the road on destinations. It was not meant as criticism.

His previous work is irrelevant.  He believes in this concept and has been satisfied to the extent that he needs to be that there is an ROI and a reason to do this.  Cased closed.  It is his money.

History is littered with investors who put money into things.  Some worked out and some did not.  However, that is what pushes things along.  Government cannot nor should it do it all.

I still just find it astounding that so many think we should just "go commercial" as if it exists (partially based on the perpetuated internet myth and ill-formed bloggers) but government should pay for it all and then when something truly commercial happens, it met with skepticism and arm-chair quaterbacking, when none of those questions were asked (either out of ignorance, a reluctance to want to know the truth or both) for government-funded "commercial". 

[Namechange User]

Excellent. The more companies working on space launch with NASA out of equation the better!

This is the only one.  Also, let's not be so myopic that this could not benefit NASA just as it could benefit others.  NASA is not an enemy, which is the opposite extreme viewpoint, and also not where reality exists. 

[Jim]

Delta II was not withdrawn for lack of customers, it was withdrawn because ULA wanted to focus on EELVs, which are more profitable. There were plenty of government payloads for the mass range.

Wrong, it was lack of customers willing to pay for the actual costs of Delta II once the USAF no longer was supporting it.  ULA offered it to NASA and no payloads were willing to pay for the true costs.

It had nothing to do with profitability.  ULA is not the bad guy here, NASA got used to a subsidized vehicle.

[yinzer]

The mid-sized Delta-2-ish launch market is pretty small, as can be seen by the Delta 2 being withdrawn for lack of customers.

Delta II was not withdrawn for lack of customers, it was withdrawn because ULA wanted to focus on EELVs, which are more profitable. There were plenty of government payloads for the mass range. Whether the market can support both Stratolaunch and Antares, I don't know.

I think it was withdrawn because of a lack of enough customers, and specifically lack of a customer (the USAF GPS program) who was willing to pay to keep the launch system available for a T-30 day launch and thus absorb a lot of the fixed costs.  The payloads left weren't able to keep it out of the procurement death spiral...

[Chris Bergin]

Falcon 5/6

Falcon 4 or 5, isn't it!?

[Seattle Dave]

Falcon 5/6

Falcon 4 or 5, isn't it!?

Yes. Aviation Week made a mistake there.

[Prober]

I find this all very weird, nothing about Stratolaunch on the SpaceX web site.

[kkattula]

I applaud Mr Allen's willingness to invest (yet again) in space flight. We can't get enough people like him.

It may not be the architecture I'd choose, but it's still interesting and workable. Plus it's his money.


I wonder: is Gary Hudson involved at all?  His company AirLaunch LLC were until recently experimenting with air-dropped liquid fuel launchers, and also involved in T/Space, (with Scaled Composites), looking at a very similar concept.  If it was up to me, I'd at least hire him as a consultant on this project.

[baldusi]

Aviation Week article....
13.5 MT
747-400 engines, flight deck, landing gear & systems.
Falcon 5/6
Falcon will use a feathered flight profile (!?!)

13,500lbs

[robertross]

Well this is an interesting project!

I kind of like the Spruce Goose comment, but ithat vehicle had an application that was outdated (end of a war requiring movement of military vehicles), yet we still have that very need today.

I also like Jon's concept on his webpage on the the in-flight cryo cooling, something I was thinking of while reading about all this.

Thinking of the excellent comment on Mike Griffin & solids, when you have a launch like this, wouldn't there be an advantage of having an SRB kick stage during launch? Start the kerelox engines at minimum throttle, and with a good reading on all engines, engage the kicker stage at vehicle separation as it begins throttle up.

In the case of a launch failure/abort, the booster drops off, the US engine lights (maybe not) to separate the PLF/spacecraft and land under parachutes in the ocean with the help of inflatable bags (maybe?).

Launching from KSC & Vandenburg just make sense. You can transport the components on aircraft or by barge to the launch (take-off) sites, fly an unloaded aircraft (or maybe even an empty rocket) there, integrate, fuel, and take off.

Some questions are:
WHERE will it be built. I'm wondering about excess capacity at MAF.

How much structural strengthening might be required from some of the engineering types on here? I'm thinking the load paths on the ground and in 'carried flight' when fully fueled will be challenging, especially for the underside of the transport aircraft. Also, the outer skin of the rocket will tend to 'droop' downwards, and that added rigidity would add a fair bit of mass I assume.

Fuel pickup. The fuel tanks being the way they are will require some serious anti-slosh features, and fuel pumps will need to be rather special for low pressure pickup and higher discharge pressures.

The market issue has been thrown around, but I believe if the costs were low enough, there is an expanded business case. This might play well into the Bigelow-style module concept for orbital labs: crewed or otherwise.

[Oberon_Command]

I wonder: is Gary Hudson involved at all?  His company AirLaunch LLC were until recently experimenting with air-dropped liquid fuel launchers, and also involved in T/Space, (with Scaled Composites), looking at a very similar concept.  If it was up to me, I'd at least hire him as a consultant on this project.

I was going to say, I wonder what the t/Space folks think of this?

[Rocket Science]

I applaud Mr Allen's willingness to invest (yet again) in space flight. We can't get enough people like him.

It may not be the architecture I'd choose, but it's still interesting and workable. Plus it's his money.


I wonder: is Gary Hudson involved at all?  His company AirLaunch LLC were until recently experimenting with air-dropped liquid fuel launchers, and also involved in T/Space, (with Scaled Composites), looking at a very similar concept.  If it was up to me, I'd at least hire him as a consultant on this project.

I wish I could get him to fund the R&D for my Flyback Falcon concept.

http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=27477.15

[Robotbeat]

I wonder: is Gary Hudson involved at all?  His company AirLaunch LLC were until recently experimenting with air-dropped liquid fuel launchers, and also involved in T/Space, (with Scaled Composites), looking at a very similar concept.  If it was up to me, I'd at least hire him as a consultant on this project.

I was going to say, I wonder what the t/Space folks think of this?

HMXHMX?

[360-180]

Compare with this design
Hercules

http://www.buran.ru/htm/aviager.htm

[baldusi]

I'm still wondering about the Aircraft. I understand, from comments in this forums, that the Pegasus ended up being too expensive because of the cost of the plane, that has to be kept exclusively for this launcher.
I also remember that theres plenty of demand for An-124, and they even tried to finish the second An-225 airframe, but couldn't finance the extra 300M they needed to finish it. Since this was extra demand for the current An-124/225 operators, a possible competitor would have more incentives to enter the market. For those that are not savy in economic theory, the basic idea is that for the an-225 monopolist, adding a second unit will bring some extra revenue, but it might have to lower it prices a bit to get enough business. So he (hopefully) will earn more profits, but not twice as much. A new entrant, instead, will not care to go with lower prices, since whatever they do over costs is profit. Given that Anatov and it's partners seriously tried for a second An-225, it's quite probable that there's a very good business opportunity for an equivalent cargo lifter.
This is my conundrum. Why haven't they designed a plane that can also compete with the an-225? You can get so much extra performance on the LV market to capture the extra profit of competing with the Ukrainian monster? From a business perspective an airplane that can cover both roles would be great at earning a steady revenue.
On the other hand, my wild assumption is that they are going to the route of cheaper DDE&T, which quite probably is the dominating cost/risk here. I've also theorized if they could fit a sort of lifting body cargo carrier in the middle, maybe with some extra fuel compartment. On advantage is that it ca be developed as a separate project, if the plane is a technical success, without making too many compromises. May be even if the RP-1 tank is compatible with JP-1, use that for extra ferry distance. With that option they could cover almost both markets.
The ferry cost would be higher and the an-225 appears to be compatible with more runways. But being able to compete on some routes is better than having development costs so high that you don't do the project, right.

[RocketJack]

Excellent. The more companies working on space launch with NASA out of equation the better!

Except what are they going to launch? We have Delta IV (possibly also remnants of Delta II), Atlas V, Falcon 9, Taurus II Antares, and now Stratalaunch plus other people seriously vying for a medium-to-heavy launch service including Blue Origin and ATK (not just Liberty). Those are just the domestic folks. You also have Soyuz, Proton, Ariane 5, Indian, and Chinese launch vehicles. It's getting pretty crowded, here!

I think it's a really cool concept, but what the heck are these going to all launch? The EELVs were already having a hard time finding payloads just by themselves...

Everyone loves to make a big sexy rocket, and wings are icing on the cake!

They are clearly pushing for new or greatly expanded markets with this. I'm not going to bet against them.

Not only are there not enough payloads- there are not enough tourists. The only proof you need is that the Russians are not flying any. And don't be fooled into thinking that NASA and RSA need all the seats - I can guarantee that if a paying customer showed up who wasn't a nutcase the Russians would find a way to take their money and launch them. The problem is that they have run out of people with sufficient funds who can invest the amount of training time that is required. Think about what this means for the "tourist" launch companies - they will have to SIGNIFICANTLY reduce below Soyuz and/or not train them as much as a spaceflight participant.

[Chris Bergin]

Ok, so we'll work on that larger piece for later. I've written up a short baseline for the announcement.

http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2011/12/stratolaunch-rutan-designed-air-launched-system-falcon-rockets/

[Bubbinski]

Just catching up.....WOW.  To me the plane is the bigger deal than the rocket underneath it.  The size of 2 747's.....reminds me of a concept I saw in Dennis Jenkins' book about the Space Shuttle, a shuttle carrier aircraft concept that would carry the orbiter underneath the middle wing section, a plane that had twin fuselages and was really big.

I would imagine a whole lot could be done with the plane besides launch the "big Pegasus" - perhaps fly very heavy cargoes in a pod slung underneath?  Or act as a shuttle carrier aircraft if there was a need to move one of the retired orbiters from one museum to another?  Maybe be the carrier aircraft for a suborbital successor to Concorde that could carry passengers and cargo from California to the east coast in an hour?

If that thing ever flies into Salt Lake International I guarantee you I'd try to get a glimpse and some pics of it.  And I could see myself doing a road trip to Mojave to see that thing in action.

[jimvela]

Aviation Week article....

13.5 MT
747-400 engines, flight deck, landing gear & systems.
Falcon 5/6
Falcon will use a feathered flight profile (!?!)

Yeah, that seems to be one of the big potential wins for SpaceX along with having a customer for more falcons and some development money...

As I said here
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=27520.185

Edit: Plus, if SpaceX ever wanted to license one of Rutan's novel swivel-wing recovery methods for a booster (hint, hint)-this would be a good way to end up with such a license...

[Paul Howard]

Ok, so we'll work on that larger piece for later. I've written up a short baseline for the announcement.

http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2011/12/stratolaunch-rutan-designed-air-launched-system-falcon-rockets/

Thanks Chris. That's a much easier read than going through this thread