Stratolaunch: General Company and Development Updates and Discussions

[Eric Hedman]

People, I think you are beating a dead horse.  Just because they have a cool aircraft doesn't mean it's practical to use.  This large aircraft is not a good choice for firefighting.  It is not a good choice for hauling odd size payloads.  With the advances of of other companies, it will not compete well with SpaceX, Blue Origin, ULA, Rocketlab, etc. I wouldn't have been surprised if Paul Allen was still around that he would have come to the conclusion it's time to try something else.  It is time for the Deuce Goose to go on display as the museum piece that it is.

[JEF_300]

For whatever it's worth, I do think there's a way to make air launch viable, using up-range launch and first stage landing. Rather than landing 400 miles down-range on a barge and towing it back like the Falcon 9, you launch from an aircraft that's flown 400 miles up-range and land back at the spaceport you took off from. This gives you the benefits of RTLS and down-range landings at the same time, but you have to air launch to make it work.

Of course, you don't need Roc to try this concept out; horizontally landing Launcher One's first stage is probably a better and cheaper way to test this. The advantage of Roc has always been the possibility to air launch large vehicles. And while I'd really like to see a Falcon 9 airdropped up-range, I don't suspect it will happen anytime soon, if ever.

The worst part is that Roc is just the absolute greatest name. Nothing will ever compare.

[meekGee]

For whatever it's worth, I do think there's a way to make air launch viable, using up-range launch and first stage landing. Rather than landing 400 miles down-range on a barge and towing it back like the Falcon 9, you launch from an aircraft that's flown 400 miles up-range and land back at the spaceport you took off from. This gives you the benefits of RTLS and down-range landings at the same time, but you have to air launch to make it work.

Of course, you don't need Roc to try this concept out; horizontally landing Launcher One's first stage is probably a better and cheaper way to test this. The advantage of Roc has always been the possibility to air launch large vehicles. And while I'd really like to see a Falcon 9 airdropped up-range, I don't suspect it will happen anytime soon, if ever.

The worst part is that Roc is just the absolute greatest name. Nothing will ever compare.

The two magic pieces that make spaceflight possible are the insane power density of a rocket engine, and the almost-as-insane mass fraction of a cylindrical rocket body.

A flown first stage tries to replace the first few % of the flight with am airplane, but this always falls short on performance, and so what you're left with are secondary arguments like "launch from anywhere" and the aforementioned forward RTLS.

But then comes the scalability of rockets up to SS and larger sizes, and the airplanes can't even come close.

So air drop systems are limited in size, limited in value, and add a ton of development and logistics to an already complex system.

Try it from any direction you want, it's just not a good idea.

[Rocket Science]

For whatever it's worth, I do think there's a way to make air launch viable, using up-range launch and first stage landing. Rather than landing 400 miles down-range on a barge and towing it back like the Falcon 9, you launch from an aircraft that's flown 400 miles up-range and land back at the spaceport you took off from. This gives you the benefits of RTLS and down-range landings at the same time, but you have to air launch to make it work.

Of course, you don't need Roc to try this concept out; horizontally landing Launcher One's first stage is probably a better and cheaper way to test this. The advantage of Roc has always been the possibility to air launch large vehicles. And while I'd really like to see a Falcon 9 airdropped up-range, I don't suspect it will happen anytime soon, if ever.

The worst part is that Roc is just the absolute greatest name. Nothing will ever compare.

The two magic pieces that make spaceflight possible are the insane power density of a rocket engine, and the almost-as-insane mass fraction of a cylindrical rocket body.

A flown first stage tries to replace the first few % of the flight with am airplane, but this always falls short on performance, and so what you're left with are secondary arguments like "launch from anywhere" and the aforementioned forward RTLS.

But then comes the scalability of rockets up to SS and larger sizes, and the airplanes can't even come close.

So air drop systems are limited in size, limited in value, and add a ton of development and logistics to an already complex system.

Try it from any direction you want, it's just not a good idea.

It's "physics" not magic...

[meekGee]

For whatever it's worth, I do think there's a way to make air launch viable, using up-range launch and first stage landing. Rather than landing 400 miles down-range on a barge and towing it back like the Falcon 9, you launch from an aircraft that's flown 400 miles up-range and land back at the spaceport you took off from. This gives you the benefits of RTLS and down-range landings at the same time, but you have to air launch to make it work.

Of course, you don't need Roc to try this concept out; horizontally landing Launcher One's first stage is probably a better and cheaper way to test this. The advantage of Roc has always been the possibility to air launch large vehicles. And while I'd really like to see a Falcon 9 airdropped up-range, I don't suspect it will happen anytime soon, if ever.

The worst part is that Roc is just the absolute greatest name. Nothing will ever compare.

The two magic pieces that make spaceflight possible are the insane power density of a rocket engine, and the almost-as-insane mass fraction of a cylindrical rocket body.

A flown first stage tries to replace the first few % of the flight with am airplane, but this always falls short on performance, and so what you're left with are secondary arguments like "launch from anywhere" and the aforementioned forward RTLS.

But then comes the scalability of rockets up to SS and larger sizes, and the airplanes can't even come close.

So air drop systems are limited in size, limited in value, and add a ton of development and logistics to an already complex system.

Try it from any direction you want, it's just not a good idea.

It's "physics" not magic...

To me rocket engines are "practically indistinguishable from magic", and I even kinda know how they work...

At no point will this be more apparent than when Hopper lifts off using a single Raptor

[starchasercowboy]

Has anybody heard of Stratolaunch being bought. Who is the new owner?

[john smith 19]

The two magic pieces that make spaceflight possible are the insane power density of a rocket engine, and the almost-as-insane mass fraction of a cylindrical rocket body.

Or the very bad Isp of any rocket (compared to an air breathing system) that makes them necessary. 

The question is how much easier does an Isp of 3000secs+ over the first <340 m/s of velocity make designing the vehicle? Does the fact you're already above half the atmosphere and moving horizontally (so radically reduced gravity losses) compensate for a custom aircraft?

Some people think it's worthwhile, some don't.

[libra]

For the anecdote, whoever is heir to Paul Allen (his sister AFAIK, can't remember) is also selling Allen private Mig-29UB two-seater. Looks like they have decided to liquidate the most expensive assets...

[meekGee]

The two magic pieces that make spaceflight possible are the insane power density of a rocket engine, and the almost-as-insane mass fraction of a cylindrical rocket body.

Or the very bad Isp of any rocket (compared to an air breathing system) that makes them necessary. 

The question is how much easier does an Isp of 3000secs+ over the first <340 m/s of velocity make designing the vehicle? Does the fact you're already above half the atmosphere and moving horizontally (so radically reduced gravity losses) compensate for a custom aircraft?

Some people think it's worthwhile, some don't.

That's been done a million times.  It's easier to enlarge a first stage than it is to make a dedicated horizontal first stage for the first 340 m/s...

The reason is that for a first stage, ISP is less important than thrust, and especially for an ultra-low-dV first stage.   High ISP is important for high-energy upper stages.

This is straight forward out of the rocket equation. The effects of ISP are exponential to the dV. That's why low-ISP solids are used to boost first stages.

---

The proof is in the pudding.  "Wing people" have been trying this for how long now?   It doesn't scale.

Stratolaunch was not short on money, but couldn't make it work.

Virgin Galactic, after an incredibly long development effort is fielding a vehicle that literally can't clear the same Karman line they cleared with the smaller SS1. Compare that with BO's NS that is flying higher and more reusably on a 1:1 mission type.

Virgin orbit might be competitive with vertical rockets of similar size - but unlike the verticals, they can't scale up.

I am sure that "wing people" will always advocate for that air breathing first stage, but it will always fall short.

[JEF_300]

The proof is in the pudding.  "Wing people" have been trying this for how long now?   It doesn't scale.

Stratolaunch was not short on money, but couldn't make it work.

I don't mean to call you in particular out. It's just that I've seen people say this a few times now, and it's total and unequivocal nonsense.

Ok, so you claim that Stratolaunch couldn't make air-launch work? My first response would be to ask for a list of times that Stratolaunch attempted an air-launch, and couldn't make it work.

Except we both know that Startolaunch was never even able to attempt an air-launch. But how can a company which never even attempted an air-launch be cited as an example of air-launch not working?

Perhaps you meant that they were having some sort of technical or design difficulty that ultimately caused them to fail, as a result of their air-launch architecture.

Well, they had an aircraft which worked, they were working on a very impressive engine, they had a launch vehicle design, and they even had a smaller proven launch vehicle (Pegasus) for the interim. Personally, I don't recall at any point hearing about any major technical delays to their progress.

Well if technical issues weren't what caused Stratolaunch to fail, what did?

What we have to remember is that Stratolaunch didn't fail; it was closed down. The thing that sealed Stratolaunch's fate wasn't technical problems or profit margins or the concept of air-launch, it was cancer. Paul Allen died, and his family decided they didn't want to continue the endeavor.

Whatever you may think of air-launch, and I really don't care, Stratolaunch is NOT an example of the concept of air-launch failing; it's an example of what can happen when a man dies unexpectedly, and a reminder of how important one person can be to an organization.

To suggest otherwise is both disingenuous and somewhat disrespectful. If you are one of the people that have done so, please stop.

[ThePhugoid]

The two magic pieces that make spaceflight possible are the insane power density of a rocket engine, and the almost-as-insane mass fraction of a cylindrical rocket body.

Or the very bad Isp of any rocket (compared to an air breathing system) that makes them necessary. 

The question is how much easier does an Isp of 3000secs+ over the first <340 m/s of velocity make designing the vehicle? Does the fact you're already above half the atmosphere and moving horizontally (so radically reduced gravity losses) compensate for a custom aircraft?

Some people think it's worthwhile, some don't.

That's been done a million times.  It's easier to enlarge a first stage than it is to make a dedicated horizontal first stage for the first 340 m/s...

The reason is that for a first stage, ISP is less important than thrust, and especially for an ultra-low-dV first stage.   High ISP is important for high-energy upper stages.

This is straight forward out of the rocket equation. The effects of ISP are exponential to the dV. That's why low-ISP solids are used to boost first stages.

---

The proof is in the pudding.  "Wing people" have been trying this for how long now?   It doesn't scale.

Stratolaunch was not short on money, but couldn't make it work.

Virgin Galactic, after an incredibly long development effort is fielding a vehicle that literally can't clear the same Karman line they cleared with the smaller SS1. Compare that with BO's NS that is flying higher and more reusably on a 1:1 mission type.

Virgin orbit might be competitive with vertical rockets of similar size - but unlike the verticals, they can't scale up.

I am sure that "wing people" will always advocate for that air breathing first stage, but it will always fall short.

You’re basing all of your conclusions on the flawed assumption that people who propose air-launch do it for performance reasons alone. There are other intrinsic reasons to choose to launch from an aircraft.

If you look carefully for statements from any of these companies or their representatives, rarely if ever do they state choosing air launch for performance reasons alone. Companies that do generally aren’t past the PowerPoint stage.

[meekGee]

The two magic pieces that make spaceflight possible are the insane power density of a rocket engine, and the almost-as-insane mass fraction of a cylindrical rocket body.

Or the very bad Isp of any rocket (compared to an air breathing system) that makes them necessary. 

The question is how much easier does an Isp of 3000secs+ over the first <340 m/s of velocity make designing the vehicle? Does the fact you're already above half the atmosphere and moving horizontally (so radically reduced gravity losses) compensate for a custom aircraft?

Some people think it's worthwhile, some don't.

That's been done a million times.  It's easier to enlarge a first stage than it is to make a dedicated horizontal first stage for the first 340 m/s...

The reason is that for a first stage, ISP is less important than thrust, and especially for an ultra-low-dV first stage.   High ISP is important for high-energy upper stages.

This is straight forward out of the rocket equation. The effects of ISP are exponential to the dV. That's why low-ISP solids are used to boost first stages.

---

The proof is in the pudding.  "Wing people" have been trying this for how long now?   It doesn't scale.

Stratolaunch was not short on money, but couldn't make it work.

Virgin Galactic, after an incredibly long development effort is fielding a vehicle that literally can't clear the same Karman line they cleared with the smaller SS1. Compare that with BO's NS that is flying higher and more reusably on a 1:1 mission type.

Virgin orbit might be competitive with vertical rockets of similar size - but unlike the verticals, they can't scale up.

I am sure that "wing people" will always advocate for that air breathing first stage, but it will always fall short.

You’re basing all of your conclusions on the flawed assumption that people who propose air-launch do it for performance reasons alone. There are other intrinsic reasons to choose to launch from an aircraft.

If you look carefully for statements from any of these companies or their representatives, rarely if ever do they state choosing air launch for performance reasons alone. Companies that do generally aren’t past the PowerPoint stage.

I know those by heart - operational flexibility etc.  It never moved the needle, since for most applications, even including upcoming ones, it just doesn't matter.

I don't mind that they're trying, I'm glad the concept is getting an honest chance to succeed, but I just don't think it will.

[meekGee]

The proof is in the pudding.  "Wing people" have been trying this for how long now?   It doesn't scale.

Stratolaunch was not short on money, but couldn't make it work.

I don't mean to call you in particular out. It's just that I've seen people say this a few times now, and it's total and unequivocal nonsense.

Ok, so you claim that Stratolaunch couldn't make air-launch work? My first response would be to ask for a list of times that Stratolaunch attempted an air-launch, and couldn't make it work.

Except we both know that Startolaunch was never even able to attempt an air-launch. But how can a company which never even attempted an air-launch be cited as an example of air-launch not working?

Perhaps you meant that they were having some sort of technical or design difficulty that ultimately caused them to fail, as a result of their air-launch architecture.

Well, they had an aircraft which worked, they were working on a very impressive engine, they had a launch vehicle design, and they even had a smaller proven launch vehicle (Pegasus) for the interim. Personally, I don't recall at any point hearing about any major technical delays to their progress.

Well if technical issues weren't what caused Stratolaunch to fail, what did?

What we have to remember is that Stratolaunch didn't fail; it was closed down. The sealed Stratolaunch's fate wasn't technical problems or profit margins or the concept of air-launch, it was cancer. Paul Allen died, and his family decided they didn't want to continue the endeavor.

Whatever you may think of air-launch, and I really don't care, Stratolaunch is NOT an example of the concept of air-launch failing; it's an example of what can happen when a man dies unexpectedly, and a reminder of how important one person can be to an organization.

To suggest otherwise is both disingenuous and somewhat disrespectful. If you are one of the people that have done so, please stop.

I didn't mean "can work" technically.  Of course it can.

I meant in the broader sense of "compete viably with ground launched rockets", and I'll add "especially in the context of reusable ones".

I have no doubt that if you hung an F5 under Roc, it could be made to launch successfully.

But even advantages such as "recover forward" is not worth the complications and risk (e.g. Amos 6, airborne)

At the end of the day, the VTVL concept is simpler and cheaper, that's all.  IMO.

[JEF_300]

I didn't mean "can work" technically.  Of course it can.

I meant in the broader sense of "compete viably with ground launched rockets", and I'll add "especially in the context of reusable ones".

I have no doubt that if you hung an F5 under Roc, it could be made to launch successfully.

But even advantages such as "recover forward" is not worth the complications and risk (e.g. Amos 6, airborne)

At the end of the day, the VTVL concept is simpler and cheaper, that's all.  IMO.

You said:

Stratolaunch was not short on money, but couldn't make it work.

Written all together, I believe what you meant is, "Stratolaunch was not short on money, but couldn't compete viably with ground launched rockets (especially in the context of reusable ones)."

My point is that Startolaunch never launched a rocket, so the number of times they attempted to compete viably with ground launched rockets is zero, which means there is no data to back up your claim.

Since the claim is baseless, it doesn't support your overall argument.

You can't use a claim that probably would be true to argue that something is true.

[su27k]

Ok, so you claim that Stratolaunch couldn't make air-launch work? My first response would be to ask for a list of times that Stratolaunch attempted an air-launch, and couldn't make it work.

Except we both know that Startolaunch was never even able to attempt an air-launch. But how can a company which never even attempted an air-launch be cited as an example of air-launch not working?

They didn't even get to attempt an air-launch because they spent all their time and money to build the gigantic carrier plane. They needed this carrier plane because air-launch is not scalable, the giant carrier plane is the only way they can get to a ~10t to LEO performance with air-launch (not an accurate estimate, just a ballpark, I don't remember if they gave a performance number for their original F5 air-launch or the later Orbital version)

They're trying to sell this thing for $400M, well with $400M they should be able to develop and fly F9 v1.0 class launch vehicle fairly easily, SpaceX proved it can be done. If they have a working launch vehicle the company may still get sold, but at least it wouldn't get an insulting $1 offer from Branson.

[libra]

is the only way they can get to a ~10t to LEO performance with air-launch (not an accurate estimate, just a ballpark, I don't remember if they gave a performance number for their original F5 air-launch or the later Orbital version)

7 mt, actually. 1/3 of Proton, Ariane 5 and Falcon 9

[starchasercowboy]

When I worked for BAE, Scaled Composites and BAE were working on a USAF project that was called LOFTY which turned into Stratolaunch.  The USAF has been good to airlaunch and continues to want it. Here is a new one.
Huntsville, Alabama – The U.S. Air Force (USAF) has awarded Aevum a Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR) Phase I contract for its fully autonomous launch and space logistics service. Aevum’s unique platform can launch small satellites with response times as low as 180-minutes, measured from mission conceptualization to orbital insertion to data downlink, to any low Earth orbit.

The USAF awarded Aevum under a special USAF SBIR topic developed, in partnership with Air Force Research Laboratory (AFRL), National Security Innovation Network (NSIN) – formerly MD5, and USAF AFWERX, to increase the efficiency, effectiveness, and transition rate of the SBIR program.

Under this contract, Aevum will move quickly to find an Air Force transition partner for its autonomous launch system to provide strategic responsive launch capabilities to the USAF for global persistent awareness.

Aevum has made rapid progress in bringing its autonomous launch architecture to full service. Autonomous launch is a brand-new type of access to space conceived by Aevum. It requires an advanced logistics network comprised of launch sites, launch support assets, ground stations, fully autonomous launch vehicles, cloud technologies, and software. This global network is fully controlled and commanded by Aevum’s advanced mission management technology.

“Consideration of the logistics, launch vehicles, ground operations, integration, and mission management as a single product is paramount for rapid access to space. Autonomous launch is a system of systems, interweaved with cutting edge technology and software. The market is littered with launch vehicles and subsystems. Customers want a single end to end solution to get hardware into space that is responsive and reliable. Aevum is it.” said Jay Skylus, Founder and CEO of Aevum. “We’re honored by this opportunity to support the U.S. Air Force and are fully prepared to deliver a solution that meets their needs. The sole source eligibility of Aevum is a big deal. It’s a unique opportunity that not many companies get.”

The first in Aevum’s autonomous launch vehicle lineup is Ravn X. Ravn X is a reusable, three-stage launch vehicle – the only reusable, small launch vehicle poised to service small payloads. The first stage is a fully autonomous unmanned aerial system (UAS) powered by afterburning turbojet engines. The second and third stages are liquid rocket stages powered by staged-combustion liquid engines utilizing Jet A and liquid oxygen. To date, Aevum has completed the ground qualification of all major subsystems of Ravn X. All Ravn X propulsion systems, both airbreathing and rocket-based, have been hot-fired full scale and beyond full duration of expected mission times of orbital Ravn X launches. Ravn X has the performance to deliver at least 100 kg to 500 km, sun-synchronous orbit. A larger and faster launch vehicle is in the pipeline that will enter service after Ravn X.

In addition to this contract, Aevum has been evaluated favorably by other agencies of the Department of Defense (DOD) and has been garnering interest from the intelligence community (IC). In July, Aevum was selected as one of the top five small launch companies by Defense Innovation Unit (DIU) in its Tactical Launch Effort (TACTILE) Commercial Solutions Opening (CSO) – a multi-million dollar opportunity. At the time of this press release, Aevum remains eligible to formally move into Phase III of TACTILE with DIU, but is currently in a 120 day hold due to a limitation in Government resources.

“It has been a pleasure to work with DIU. The DIU team is professional, innovative, and high energy. Aevum looks forward to supporting DIU in the future.” said Skylus.

SBIR program is a highly competitive program that encourages domestic small businesses to engage in Federal Research/Research and Development (R/R&D) that has the potential for commercialization. The mission of the SBIR program is to support scientific excellence and technological innovation through the investment of Federal research funds in critical American priorities to build a strong national economy.

Aevum, Inc. provides comprehensive space logistics services, including launch services, to enable customers to deploy small payloads in low Earth orbit reliably. The core business of Aevum is the accurate, express delivery of space payloads to any orbital destinations up to 2,000 km.

[Lars-J]

My point is that Startolaunch never launched a rocket, so the number of times they attempted to compete viably with ground launched rockets is zero, which means there is no data to back up your claim.

Since the claim is baseless, it doesn't support your overall argument.

You can't use a claim that probably would be true to argue that something is true.

Products and vehicles can fail to compete viably before coming to the market and flying a mission. Coming to the market is the first test you have to pass to be a competitor!!! And this (StratoLaunch) is exhibit 1A of how to build a big piece of something yet failing to produce an overall launch system. At that is a FAILURE, a far grander failure than launching a completed rocket and having it blow up. Because at least then you made it that far.

And StratoLaunch's failure wasn't for lack of trying. No they tried SpaceX, Orbital, and finally an in-house solution for the rocket stages to to get to orbit. All fizzled out. And not because of bad luck. Sometimes a bad idea is a bad idea no matter how much funding you pour into it.

[JEF_300]

My point is that Startolaunch never launched a rocket, so the number of times they attempted to compete viably with ground launched rockets is zero, which means there is no data to back up your claim.

Since the claim is baseless, it doesn't support your overall argument.

You can't use a claim that probably would be true to argue that something is true.

Products and vehicles can fail to compete viably before coming to the market and flying a mission. Coming to the market is the first test you have to pass to be a competitor!!! And this (StratoLaunch) is exhibit 1A of how to build a big piece of something yet failing to produce an overall launch system. At that is a FAILURE, a far grander failure than launching a completed rocket and having it blow up. Because at least then you made it that far.

And StratoLaunch's failure wasn't for lack of trying. No they tried SpaceX, Orbital, and finally an in-house solution for the rocket stages to to get to orbit. All fizzled out. And not because of bad luck. Sometimes a bad idea is a bad idea no matter how much funding you pour into it.

Citing a company which never air-launched and was shut down mid-development due to unforeseen and unrelated circumstances to argue that air-launch is fundamentally flawed makes even less sense than arguing that Falcon Heavy could never work because the N1 couldn't make that number of engines work.

The issue with the N1 was that it's creator died before it was finished. The issue with Stratolaunch is that it's funder died before it was finished. Even if the concept of air-launch is fundamentally flawed, Stratolaunch isn't evidence of that.

[TripleSeven]

Citing a company which never air-launched and was shut down mid-development due to unforeseen and unrelated circumstances to argue that air-launch is fundamentally flawed makes even less sense than arguing that Falcon Heavy could never work because the N1 couldn't make that number of engines work.

The issue with the N1 was that it's creator died before it was finished. The issue with Stratolaunch is that it's funder died before it was finished. Even if the concept of air-launch is fundamentally flawed, Stratolaunch isn't evidence of that.

well said.

I think Branson's air launched efforts will be a fairly solid test of the concept.  the limit is of course the sub sonic speed...but they might have both found a product niche that will make the system economically viable

I am most hopeful about the "to be an astronaut" effort.  IF this works and they get a steady stream of customers...it will be in my view an amazing opening into "space" (even suborbital) travel for non space types which will be a possible start of routine space ops by people.

"routine" is like "re usability" a word which is bandied about a lot...but if people can go to Branson's place in NM or whever (the mideast, Italy) have a modest primer into the operation which is also "fun", then fly, and go forward it will be a big deal

Statolaunch never got a real test of where the hardware could have gone.  as you say ...the guy who had the vision died...

its not a definitive test of the concept.