Stratolaunch: General Company and Development Updates and Discussions

[envy887]

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.

It could be evidence that air-launch is too expensive to get up and running, if we knew how much Allen actually spent on it. Even a rough estimate would be interesting.

[ncb1397]

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.

It could be evidence that air-launch is too expensive to get up and running, if we knew how much Allen actually spent on it. Even a rough estimate would be interesting.

The projection before the project was:

“Stratolaunch will build an air launch system that to give us orbital access to space with greater safety, flexibility, and cost effectiveness,” Allen said. He didn’t disclose how much a launch by Stratolaunch would cost, but did say he expected to invest an order of magnitude more into this venture than he did in SpaceShipOne—which implies a development cost of around $300 million or more, as Allen mentioned in his memoir that he spent $28 million on SpaceShipOne.

http://www.thespacereview.com/article/1994/1

Considering an A380 costs about half a billion, I think that is probably more ballpark for a customized aircraft to this degree and of this size(maybe a bit more). They also listed it for $400 million while their costs of construction and development probably have some bearing on the asking price. It bears keeping in mind that stratolaunch was a small company according to this article:

Allen’s passing is cited as one of the main reasons for the shift in Stratolaunch’s plans at the beginning of this year. When the company announced in January that it was ending development of its own rocket engines and vehicles, Stratolaunch reportedly laid off more than 50 of its 80 employees

https://www.nbcnews.com/science/science-news/stratolaunch-world-s-largest-airplane-takes-first-flight-n994186

That is about 2 orders of magnitude lower in terms of personnel requirements compared to SpaceX (although they out source to a greater degree).

[JEF_300]

It could be evidence that air-launch is too expensive to get up and running, if we knew how much Allen actually spent on it. Even a rough estimate would be interesting.

The projection before the project was:

“Stratolaunch will build an air launch system that to give us orbital access to space with greater safety, flexibility, and cost effectiveness,” Allen said. He didn’t disclose how much a launch by Stratolaunch would cost, but did say he expected to invest an order of magnitude more into this venture than he did in SpaceShipOne—which implies a development cost of around $300 million or more, as Allen mentioned in his memoir that he spent $28 million on SpaceShipOne.

http://www.thespacereview.com/article/1994/1

Considering an A380 costs about half a billion, I think that is probably more ballpark for a customized aircraft to this degree and of this size(maybe a bit more). They also listed it for $400 million while their costs of construction and development probably have some bearing on the asking price. It bears keeping in mind that stratolaunch was a small company according to this article:

Allen’s passing is cited as one of the main reasons for the shift in Stratolaunch’s plans at the beginning of this year. When the company announced in January that it was ending development of its own rocket engines and vehicles, Stratolaunch reportedly laid off more than 50 of its 80 employees

https://www.nbcnews.com/science/science-news/stratolaunch-world-s-largest-airplane-takes-first-flight-n994186

That is about 2 orders of magnitude lower in terms of personnel requirements compared to SpaceX (although they out source to a greater degree).

Also remember that Stratolaunch probably lost a lot of time and money to shifting plans, which is a managerial problem, rather than to designing for air-launch.

And even if a complete Stratolaunch system had been built and tested, and that had cost twice as much as F9 development did, for all we know it could've made up for the addition development costs in flight (although that does seem unlikely).

[envy887]

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.

It could be evidence that air-launch is too expensive to get up and running, if we knew how much Allen actually spent on it. Even a rough estimate would be interesting.

The projection before the project was:

“Stratolaunch will build an air launch system that to give us orbital access to space with greater safety, flexibility, and cost effectiveness,” Allen said. He didn’t disclose how much a launch by Stratolaunch would cost, but did say he expected to invest an order of magnitude more into this venture than he did in SpaceShipOne—which implies a development cost of around $300 million or more, as Allen mentioned in his memoir that he spent $28 million on SpaceShipOne.

http://www.thespacereview.com/article/1994/1

Considering an A380 costs about half a billion, I think that is probably more ballpark for a customized aircraft to this degree and of this size(maybe a bit more). They also listed it for $400 million while their costs of construction and development probably have some bearing on the asking price. It bears keeping in mind that stratolaunch was a small company according to this article:

Allen’s passing is cited as one of the main reasons for the shift in Stratolaunch’s plans at the beginning of this year. When the company announced in January that it was ending development of its own rocket engines and vehicles, Stratolaunch reportedly laid off more than 50 of its 80 employees

https://www.nbcnews.com/science/science-news/stratolaunch-world-s-largest-airplane-takes-first-flight-n994186

That is about 2 orders of magnitude lower in terms of personnel requirements compared to SpaceX (although they out source to a greater degree).

Interesting. And that's without a rocket. Falcon 9 and Antares cost $360M and $596M respectively, so just for the plane they are already in the ballpark. Any info on how much they actually spent on getting the engines to preburner tests? ISTM that rocket development would have cost another $200-300M or so at least.

[ncb1397]

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.

It could be evidence that air-launch is too expensive to get up and running, if we knew how much Allen actually spent on it. Even a rough estimate would be interesting.

The projection before the project was:

“Stratolaunch will build an air launch system that to give us orbital access to space with greater safety, flexibility, and cost effectiveness,” Allen said. He didn’t disclose how much a launch by Stratolaunch would cost, but did say he expected to invest an order of magnitude more into this venture than he did in SpaceShipOne—which implies a development cost of around $300 million or more, as Allen mentioned in his memoir that he spent $28 million on SpaceShipOne.

http://www.thespacereview.com/article/1994/1

Considering an A380 costs about half a billion, I think that is probably more ballpark for a customized aircraft to this degree and of this size(maybe a bit more). They also listed it for $400 million while their costs of construction and development probably have some bearing on the asking price. It bears keeping in mind that stratolaunch was a small company according to this article:

Allen’s passing is cited as one of the main reasons for the shift in Stratolaunch’s plans at the beginning of this year. When the company announced in January that it was ending development of its own rocket engines and vehicles, Stratolaunch reportedly laid off more than 50 of its 80 employees

https://www.nbcnews.com/science/science-news/stratolaunch-world-s-largest-airplane-takes-first-flight-n994186

That is about 2 orders of magnitude lower in terms of personnel requirements compared to SpaceX (although they out source to a greater degree).

Interesting. And that's without a rocket. Falcon 9 and Antares cost $360M and $596M respectively, so just for the plane they are already in the ballpark. Any info on how much they actually spent on getting the engines to preburner tests? ISTM that rocket development would have cost another $200-300M or so at least.

The project projection of $300 million isn't far from the cost of the two launch sites for falcon 9.

Shotwell said repairs to the launch pad at Cape Canaveral Air Force Station, which are still underway, should cost “far less than half” of a new launch pad, which she said runs about $100 million. The new launch pad is at NASA’s Kennedy Space Center, just north of the Cape Canaveral site.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-space-spacex/exclusive-spacex-to-hit-fastest-launch-pace-with-new-florida-site-executive-idUSKBN15M03N

[Lars-J]

Also remember that Stratolaunch probably lost a lot of time and money to shifting plans, which is a managerial problem, rather than to designing for air-launch.

No, that's not managerial problems. That is more than one sub-contractor pulling out because they don't think the contract makes sense for them.

Look, at some point one has to stop making excuses. This project had a BILLIONAIRE backing it, for crying out load. Any other space startup would "kill" for having that chance. And they still couldn't make it work, despite probably sinking close to half a billion dollars into it. (or more - they spent at least $400m given that this is the sale price for the plane and they are trying to recoup their losses)

In my opinion, Branson's Virgin Orbit is the last chance for air launch to prove itself as competitive in the market. They are at probably the optimal size point, as large as you can go with an affordable launch aircraft. If that fails...

[ncb1397]

Also remember that Stratolaunch probably lost a lot of time and money to shifting plans, which is a managerial problem, rather than to designing for air-launch.

Look, at some point one has to stop making excuses. This project had a BILLIONAIRE backing it, for crying out load. Any other space startup would "kill" for having that chance.

Like Who? Rocket Lab? Backed by Australia's sovereign wealth fund with assets roughly equal to Branson, Musk and Jeff Bezos combined.

In my opinion, Branson's Virgin Orbit is the last chance for air launch to prove itself as competitive in the market. They are at probably the optimal size point, as large as you can go with an affordable launch aircraft. If that fails...

Pegasus literally already proved the concept with a launch count in the same ballpark as falcon 9 - 43 vs 77.

[Lars-J]

Also remember that Stratolaunch probably lost a lot of time and money to shifting plans, which is a managerial problem, rather than to designing for air-launch.

Look, at some point one has to stop making excuses. This project had a BILLIONAIRE backing it, for crying out load. Any other space startup would "kill" for having that chance.

Like Who? Rocket Lab? Backed by Australia's sovereign wealth fund with assets roughly equal to Branson, Musk and Jeff Bezos combined.

Like almost *anybody* else. StratoLaunch were on easy street compared to most space startups.

In my opinion, Branson's Virgin Orbit is the last chance for air launch to prove itself as competitive in the market. They are at probably the optimal size point, as large as you can go with an affordable launch aircraft. If that fails...

Pegasus literally already proved the concept with a launch count in the same ballpark as falcon 9 - 43 vs 77.

Are you *intentionally* misunderstanding what I am writing? No one is doubting it is technically possible. Pegasus flew many times, yes. And it was and is VERY expensive, which is why it hasn't flown for a while and is probably unlikely to fly again. When challenged by modern and more cost effective launch vehicles, its market share evaporated. So the question remains, how can a slimmer and more affordable air launch system like Virgin Orbit fare against slimmer and more affordable ground launch. (from Electron to F9) That remains to be seen.

[meekGee]

Also remember that Stratolaunch probably lost a lot of time and money to shifting plans, which is a managerial problem, rather than to designing for air-launch.

Look, at some point one has to stop making excuses. This project had a BILLIONAIRE backing it, for crying out load. Any other space startup would "kill" for having that chance.

Like Who? Rocket Lab? Backed by Australia's sovereign wealth fund with assets roughly equal to Branson, Musk and Jeff Bezos combined.

In my opinion, Branson's Virgin Orbit is the last chance for air launch to prove itself as competitive in the market. They are at probably the optimal size point, as large as you can go with an affordable launch aircraft. If that fails...

Pegasus literally already proved the concept with a launch count in the same ballpark as falcon 9 - 43 vs 77.

How much did RocketLab spend though?

And Pegasus is a really bad datapoint for your argument.  Small, not scalable, and super expensive.

[ncb1397]

Also remember that Stratolaunch probably lost a lot of time and money to shifting plans, which is a managerial problem, rather than to designing for air-launch.

Look, at some point one has to stop making excuses. This project had a BILLIONAIRE backing it, for crying out load. Any other space startup would "kill" for having that chance.

Like Who? Rocket Lab? Backed by Australia's sovereign wealth fund with assets roughly equal to Branson, Musk and Jeff Bezos combined.

Like almost *anybody* else. StratoLaunch were on easy street compared to most space startups.

In my opinion, Branson's Virgin Orbit is the last chance for air launch to prove itself as competitive in the market. They are at probably the optimal size point, as large as you can go with an affordable launch aircraft. If that fails...

Pegasus literally already proved the concept with a launch count in the same ballpark as falcon 9 - 43 vs 77.

Are you *intentionally* misunderstanding what I am writing? No one is doubting it is technically possible. Pegasus flew many times, yes. And it was and is VERY expensive, which is why it hasn't flown for a while and is probably unlikely to fly again.

No, it is likely to fly again. ICON hasn't launched yet. And if Pegasus was so expensive, why did it fly so much (including with price sensitive commercial customers like Orbcomm)?

[JEF_300]

Also remember that Stratolaunch probably lost a lot of time and money to shifting plans, which is a managerial problem, rather than to designing for air-launch.

No, that's not managerial problems. That is more than one sub-contractor pulling out because they don't think the contract makes sense for them.

Look, at some point one has to stop making excuses. This project had a BILLIONAIRE backing it, for crying out load. Any other space startup would "kill" for having that chance. And they still couldn't make it work, despite probably sinking close to half a billion dollars into it. (or more - they spent at least $400m given that this is the sale price for the plane and they are trying to recoup their losses)

I've made my points. The only response I have is to repeat the arguments I've given previously, just in case you'll understand it this time, but instead I'll do us both a favor and just stop now.

In my opinion, Branson's Virgin Orbit is the last chance for air launch to prove itself as competitive in the market. They are at probably the optimal size point, as large as you can go with an affordable launch aircraft. If that fails...

On this, we agree.

Personally I think Virgin Orbit will succeed, if only because it looks like they'll be the second new US small-sat launcher to market. Rocket Lab has shown there are benefits to getting in early.

[TripleSeven]

[

Personally I think Virgin Orbit will succeed, if only because it looks like they'll be the second new US small-sat launcher to market. Rocket Lab has shown there are benefits to getting in early.

I think both Virgin efforts have a good chance at success.  VO has in my view found a market niche, has a good rocket that is cheap to build and the airplane is the cheapest air launch vehicle tried in terms of operating cost

Plus several countries military's are interested

[hkultala]

Also remember that Stratolaunch probably lost a lot of time and money to shifting plans, which is a managerial problem, rather than to designing for air-launch.

Look, at some point one has to stop making excuses. This project had a BILLIONAIRE backing it, for crying out load. Any other space startup would "kill" for having that chance.

Like Who? Rocket Lab? Backed by Australia's sovereign wealth fund with assets roughly equal to Branson, Musk and Jeff Bezos combined.

Like almost *anybody* else. StratoLaunch were on easy street compared to most space startups.

In my opinion, Branson's Virgin Orbit is the last chance for air launch to prove itself as competitive in the market. They are at probably the optimal size point, as large as you can go with an affordable launch aircraft. If that fails...

Pegasus literally already proved the concept with a launch count in the same ballpark as falcon 9 - 43 vs 77.

Are you *intentionally* misunderstanding what I am writing? No one is doubting it is technically possible. Pegasus flew many times, yes. And it was and is VERY expensive, which is why it hasn't flown for a while and is probably unlikely to fly again.

No, it is likely to fly again. ICON hasn't launched yet. And if Pegasus was so expensive, why did it fly so much (including with price sensitive commercial customers like Orbcomm)?

Very simple market economics.

Because there was no competition in that market segment. Even though it had terrible payload/price ratio, It was still the cheapest way to get something small to desired orbit.

Now there is Rocket lab Electron, and rideshare-option with Falcon 9.

The competition is now much tougher than it was when Pegasus was flying often.

[ncb1397]

Also remember that Stratolaunch probably lost a lot of time and money to shifting plans, which is a managerial problem, rather than to designing for air-launch.

Look, at some point one has to stop making excuses. This project had a BILLIONAIRE backing it, for crying out load. Any other space startup would "kill" for having that chance.

Like Who? Rocket Lab? Backed by Australia's sovereign wealth fund with assets roughly equal to Branson, Musk and Jeff Bezos combined.

Like almost *anybody* else. StratoLaunch were on easy street compared to most space startups.

In my opinion, Branson's Virgin Orbit is the last chance for air launch to prove itself as competitive in the market. They are at probably the optimal size point, as large as you can go with an affordable launch aircraft. If that fails...

Pegasus literally already proved the concept with a launch count in the same ballpark as falcon 9 - 43 vs 77.

Are you *intentionally* misunderstanding what I am writing? No one is doubting it is technically possible. Pegasus flew many times, yes. And it was and is VERY expensive, which is why it hasn't flown for a while and is probably unlikely to fly again.

No, it is likely to fly again. ICON hasn't launched yet. And if Pegasus was so expensive, why did it fly so much (including with price sensitive commercial customers like Orbcomm)?

Very simple market economics.

Because there was no competition in that market segment. Even though it had terrible payload/price ratio, It was still the cheapest way to get something small to desired orbit.

This applies to ground launch as well. Electron - terrible cost/kg (or payload/price ratio as you phrase it).

And I wouldn't say that Pegasus had zero competition. Minotaur-C was a small ground launcher but didn't fly much (Orbital and their customers preferred Pegasus apparently).

[HMXHMX]

On the subject of why Stratolaunch failed, I am reminded of the comments of an early pioneer of the space age in the 1920s in Germany, when asked by a newspaper reporter "What is needed to achieve interplanetary flight?"  The pioneer replied:

"Three things.  First, find the money.  Second, get the right people on the job.  Third, get the wrong people off the job!"

Strato had the money but failed at requirements two and three.

[Comga]

On the subject of why Stratolaunch failed, I am reminded of the comments of an early pioneer of the space age in the 1920s in Germany, when asked by a newspaper reporter "What is needed to achieve interplanetary flight?"  The pioneer replied:

"Three things.  First, find the money.  Second, get the right people on the job.  Third, get the wrong people off the job!"

Strato had the money but failed at requirements two and three.

Cute
But are you saying that a better team could have made the program viable?
In your opinion, could Stratolaunch be economical if they had the right rocket but considered the ROC a sunk cost which did not need to be paid off?

[Comga]

No, it is likely to fly again. ICON hasn't launched yet. And if Pegasus was so expensive, why did it fly so much (including with price sensitive commercial customers like Orbcomm)?

Very simple market economics.

Because there was no competition in that market segment. Even though it had terrible payload/price ratio, It was still the cheapest way to get something small to desired orbit.

Now there is Rocket lab Electron, and rideshare-option with Falcon 9.

The competition is now much tougher than it was when Pegasus was flying often.

Pegasus is struggling to launch ICON

And Falcon 9 doesn't need rideshare to compete with Pegasus.
NLS chose Falcon 9 for IXPE over Pegasus. 
IXPE is specifically designed for Pegasus, with tens of millions of dollars of hardware needed only to be able to fit in the Pegasus fairing and with limits imposed by the payload spec of Pegasus.
Falcon 9 wasn't even listed for equatorial orbits.
But it can loft many times the payload of Pegasus to equatorial, double with first stage recovery.
And the price of Falcon for IXPE is less than Pegasus.
Why would one ever take a compacted payload to the south Pacific, launch it horizontally, and pay more money?

Let's see if Virgin Orbit can make air launch work, but Stratolaunch did not, as opposed to Pegasus, whose successful run is probably at an end.

[HMXHMX]

On the subject of why Stratolaunch failed, I am reminded of the comments of an early pioneer of the space age in the 1920s in Germany, when asked by a newspaper reporter "What is needed to achieve interplanetary flight?"  The pioneer replied:

"Three things.  First, find the money.  Second, get the right people on the job.  Third, get the wrong people off the job!"

Strato had the money but failed at requirements two and three.

Cute
But are you saying that a better team could have made the program viable?
In your opinion, could Stratolaunch be economical if they had the right rocket but considered the ROC a sunk cost which did not need to be paid off?

Yes and yes.  But the a/c configuration is part of the problem; I had different ideas than Burt when it came to configuration and CONOPS.  But it was his project.  Sometimes I regret making the intro between Allen and Burt back in 1996...

[TripleSeven]

On the subject of why Stratolaunch failed, I am reminded of the comments of an early pioneer of the space age in the 1920s in Germany, when asked by a newspaper reporter "What is needed to achieve interplanetary flight?"  The pioneer replied:

"Three things.  First, find the money.  Second, get the right people on the job.  Third, get the wrong people off the job!"

Strato had the money but failed at requirements two and three.

Cute
But are you saying that a better team could have made the program viable?
In your opinion, could Stratolaunch be economical if they had the right rocket but considered the ROC a sunk cost which did not need to be paid off?

Yes and yes.  But the a/c configuration is part of the problem; I had different ideas than Burt when it came to configuration and CONOPS.  But it was his project.  Sometimes I regret making the intro between Allen and Burt back in 1996...

the operational and fixed cost of that "airplane" must be enormous...and scary

[Rocket Science]

On the subject of why Stratolaunch failed, I am reminded of the comments of an early pioneer of the space age in the 1920s in Germany, when asked by a newspaper reporter "What is needed to achieve interplanetary flight?"  The pioneer replied:

"Three things.  First, find the money.  Second, get the right people on the job.  Third, get the wrong people off the job!"

Strato had the money but failed at requirements two and three.

Cute
But are you saying that a better team could have made the program viable?
In your opinion, could Stratolaunch be economical if they had the right rocket but considered the ROC a sunk cost which did not need to be paid off?

Yes and yes.  But the a/c configuration is part of the problem; I had different ideas than Burt when it came to configuration and CONOPS.  But it was his project.  Sometimes I regret making the intro between Allen and Burt back in 1996...

the operational and fixed cost of that "airplane" must be enormous...and scary

Perhaps not so much for the military on some "Black Project"...