Stratolaunch: General Company and Development Updates and Discussions

[Patchouli]

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?

I think they had a good team but it highlights one of the short falls of an operation being dependent on a single investor.
I think NG should buy Stratolaunch's assets as the ROC and the PGA engines could work well with the XS-1 plane.

[JEF_300]

I think NG should buy Stratolaunch's assets as the ROC and the PGA engines could work well with the XS-1 plane.

I wonder what Northrop Grumman (or anyone for that matter) would do with the Roc. Perhaps they could offer it as a service to carry over-sized cargo, like the An-225.

But this is a space forum, so (not knowing any of the Roc's specs off-hand) launching Antares from it seems like it might be feasible if for some reason you wanted to do so. Maybe you could throw a scissor wing on it to make it reusable like the proposed Russian Baikal booster.

I have doubts that any of that would be worthwhile, but it would be cool.

Some one absolutely should buy, finish, and produce the PGA engine. It's a 3D-printed staged-combustion hydrolox engine with the thrust of a Merlin 1D. The PGA could make an upper stage design team very happy one day.

[StarryKnight]

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...

Would you care to elaborate on your ideas for a/c configuration and ConOps?

[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

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

that was of course the constant "rumor" among many (I included), or maybe just hope...the Sec AF visiting there a few times...the comparison was made in a lot of place to the Hughes Global explorer...

but really since it was a subsonic launch the only thing the numbers would justify at the end was the ability to launch in anyplane at almost any time and do it with some notion of stealth...but in the end that went away even when they could not find a rocket

and even had they found one you were left with a "one of" type airplane that if something happens to it (hard landing etc) the entire "stealth" project went away...and as you and I noted the cost of operation must have been enormous

as with anything the key to an air launch system that works is the same as any launch system.  .. find a "combination" of technologies that allow you to launch at some sort of regular pace, hence spreading infrastructure cost over a fairly wide net

if you dont do that cost explode...and thats true if you are Delta IV or stratolaunch.  thanks for your information.

[starchasercowboy]

Stratolaunch is hiring
http://jobs.jobvite.com/careers/stratolaunch/jobs?error=404#/category/256

[starchasercowboy]

From the job page
Stratolaunch is developing an air-launch platform to contribute to high-speed research and development.  The goal of Stratolaunch is to use the air-launch platform for enabling technologies that may not exist otherwise.  Stratolaunch has the potential for creating technology development opportunities for commercial, philanthropic, and governmental organizations to collect rich and actionable data and drive advancements in science, research, and technology.

[ChrisWilson68]

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.

That is an invalid argument.

When no time, money, and effort has been put into developing a concept, there are a lot of unknowns.  If investors aren't willing to invest, it might be because the concept is good but that's not known because of all the uncertainty.

The more time, money, and effort that has been put into a venture, the more the unknowns are reduced.  So, if investors aren't willing to invest to continue a company after time, money, and effort have been put into it, that's stronger evidence the concept is flawed than if no time, money, and effort have been put in.

The more time, money, and effort have been put into a company, the stronger the evidence the concept is not viable when no investor can be found to continue the company.

Of course, this is not definitive.  Just because one company fails trying a concept doesn't mean another can't succeed.  It could be that Stratolaunch failed not because the concept is flawed but because they didn't execute the concept well enough.

But to claim that Stratolaunch failing as a company doesn't give any evidence at all that air launch is not a good idea is wrong.

[ChrisWilson68]

Stratolaunch is hiring
http://jobs.jobvite.com/careers/stratolaunch/jobs?error=404#/category/256

Is it really, though?

I've seen many cases where companies that were in trouble and not actually hiring kept their job postings up.  I assume they do it because they don't want to seem to be going out of business.  As long as, in theory, some buyer might be found who would want to re-start the program, they just keep the job postings so that in the unlikely event that they re-start, everything is still ready to go.  If they continue to get resumes, those could also be of some value to a buyer in the industry, even if they are for a different project at the acquiring company.

And there's also the possibility that the few people still at the company have other things to do and don't care, or maybe even don't know how to, change the web site to remove old job postings.

If Stratolaunch were actually serious about hiring people, they'd make a public announcement to counter all the press reports that they are shutting down.

[ChrisWilson68]

Some one absolutely should buy, finish, and produce the PGA engine. It's a 3D-printed staged-combustion hydrolox engine with the thrust of a Merlin 1D. The PGA could make an upper stage design team very happy one day.

Do we know that's true?  Do we know that the PGA engine is actually a good design?  Do we know that it's far enough along in development to be worth preserving without a specific customer?

Blue Origin aside, the trend in start-up launchers seems to be against hydrogen upper stages.  Cost is everything for launch these days, and hydrogen adds cost to every part of the system because it's so hard to work with.  The consensus seems to be that it's not worth it for the benefits hydrogen gives.

[ncb1397]

Blue Origin aside, the trend in start-up launchers seems to be against hydrogen upper stages.  Cost is everything for launch these days, and hydrogen adds cost to every part of the system because it's so hard to work with.  The consensus seems to be that it's not worth it for the benefits hydrogen gives.

Not sure what you mean. "Start-up launchers" like Vulcan, H3, New Glenn, Ariane 6, OmegA, SLS, Long March 5 and GSLV Mk 3 all use hydrogen upper stages. The only proposed or relatively new medium to large launcher not doing so is Starship.

[ChrisWilson68]

Blue Origin aside, the trend in start-up launchers seems to be against hydrogen upper stages.  Cost is everything for launch these days, and hydrogen adds cost to every part of the system because it's so hard to work with.  The consensus seems to be that it's not worth it for the benefits hydrogen gives.

Not sure what you mean.

I mean there are dozens of start-up companies trying to get into the launch business in recent years.  SpaceX kind of started the trend.  More recently, Rocket Lab has successfully launched.  There are dozens of others at various stages.  These have included Firefly, Vector, and many more.  They overwhelmingly use options other than hydrogen.

"Start-up launchers" like Vulcan,

Vulcan doesn't come from a start-up.  It comes from ULA, the least "start-up" of any launch company.  They are using a hydrogen upper stage because they have a very long heritage of hydrogen upper stage technology.

H3,

Again, this isn't a start-up.  It's an evolution based on many years of heritage from the old aerospace incubent in Japan.

New Glenn,

I specifically said "Blue Origin aside" because they are the outlier.  They are the exception.

Though, arguably, they're not really recent since the company is older than SpaceX.

Ariane 6, OmegA, SLS, Long March 5 and GSLV Mk 3 all use hydrogen upper stages.

Again, none of these comes from anything close to a start-up company.  These are, without exception, new evolutions of heritage technology from old-space companies.  It's also notable that they're all getting significant government funding.

The only proposed or relatively new medium to large launcher not doing so is Starship.

First of all, you're artificially excluding small launchers, which is where all the start-up activity is.  It's the only place where new commercial companies are entering the market.

Secondly, many of the start-ups say they are planning larger versions of their launchers in the future.  They are first getting into the market building a small scale version, but they plan to use the same general technologies, including fuel, in their larger launchers in the future.

[FutureSpaceTourist]

https://twitter.com/thejackbeyer/status/1174413371396907008

I saw #Stratolaunch’s hanger doors were open this morning while shooting Stargazer’s departure, you better believe I took photos.

Looks like some work is being done on Roc! Could it be that the story isn’t over yet? 🤞@Stratolaunch @NASASpaceflight

[jstrotha0975]

Looks like they are getting it ready for long term storage.

[Halidon]

Looks like they are getting it ready for long term storage.

According to Nicola Pecile, Experimental Test Pilot at Virgin Galactic, they're hiring test pilots. Which would seem to indicate they're preparing to reactivate rather than mothballing Roc.
https://twitter.com/NicolaPecile/status/1174526069073793025

[JEF_300]

Some one absolutely should buy, finish, and produce the PGA engine. It's a 3D-printed staged-combustion hydrolox engine with the thrust of a Merlin 1D. The PGA could make an upper stage design team very happy one day.

Do we know that's true?  Do we know that the PGA engine is actually a good design?  Do we know that it's far enough along in development to be worth preserving without a specific customer?

I can't speak to how good the design may be, but we know that they had begun testing the pre-burner, and my understanding is that that's the most difficult part of a staged combustion engine. It's probably far enough along to be worth saving.

[JAFO]

Sent to me by a SETP  acquaintance:
Stratolaunch is seeking to fill the following three Flight Operations positions:
Senior Test Pilot: Experienced test pilot and TPS pilot graduate to serve as PIC of the experimental Stratolaunch carrier aircraft and support aircraft.

Test Pilot: Experienced pilot with heavy, multi-engine aircraft background, developmental or operational test experience (TPS graduate desired) to serve as SIC of the experimental Stratolaunch carrier aircraft, and PIC of support aircraft.

Flight Engineer: Flight Engineer with strong academic engineering and aircraft systems test/integration background. Exceptional candidates who lack a current Flight Engineer rating may be considered.

For a detailed description of the responsibilities and qualifications for each position, please see our career opportunities at:https://www.linkedin.com/jobs/search...nited%20StatesT

[FutureSpaceTourist]

twitter.com/stratolaunch/status/1182702414001926145

Stratolaunch LLC has transitioned ownership and is continuing regular operations.  Our near-term launch vehicle development strategy focuses on providing customizable, reusable, and affordable rocket-powered testbed vehicles and associated flight services.  (1/2)

https://twitter.com/stratolaunch/status/1182702414886912000

As we continue on our mission, Stratolaunch will bring the carrier aircraft test and operations program fully in-house.  We thank @VulcanInc and @ScaledC for turning an ambitious idea into a flight-proven aircraft. (2/2)

[ncb1397]

Brainstorming who bought them ... The first thing that came to mind would be Bill Gates...

Here is Bill Gates' statement on Paul Allen's passing...

I am heartbroken by the passing of one of my oldest and dearest friends, Paul Allen. From our early days together at Lakeside School, through our partnership in the creation of Microsoft, to some of our joint philanthropic projects over the years, Paul was a true partner and dear friend. Personal computing would not have existed without him.

But Paul wasn’t content with starting one company. He channeled his intellect and compassion into a second act focused on improving people’s lives and strengthening communities in Seattle and around the world. He was fond of saying, “If it has the potential to do good, then we should do it.” That’s the kind of person he was.

Paul loved life and those around him, and we all cherished him in return. He deserved much more time, but his contributions to the world of technology and philanthropy will live on for generations to come. I will miss him tremendously.

https://fortune.com/2018/10/16/bill-gates-paul-allen-death-microsoft/

[Lars-J]

I'm not sure anybody bought them, the press release is confusing. Did they just spin off "Stratolaunch LLC" into its own thing with the same owners, or was there a buyer? (or buyer(s))

[xyv]

They have no source of revenue.  If nobody bought them there is no funding to complete whatever remaining development is needed to develop a revenue stream from actual customers.  There is no business here yet.