Stratolaunch: General Company and Development Updates and Discussions

[whitelancer64]

Some questions for our assembled Space-geeks:

1. Could Roc carry a rocket on the scale of Rocketlab's Electron?

2. Would air-launching an Electron or similar sized small-sat vehicle permit it to orbit larger payloads?

3. Would air-launching an Electron in particular with a normal payload allow it to save enough fuel to conduct a reentry burn, slowing it enough to allow it to penetrate what Peter Beck called "the Wall"?

1. Per Wikipedia, Stratolaunch can carry a payload of 230,000 kg / 500,000 lb. Electron is 12,500 kg / 27,600 lb when fully fueled, so Yes.

2. Yes.

3. I'd guess yes, probably. However, that may not be necessary for recovery. It would most likely cost a lot more in modifying the Electron for an air launch than it would be worth.

[jstrotha0975]

Some questions for our assembled Space-geeks:

1. Could Roc carry a rocket on the scale of Rocketlab's Electron?

2. Would air-launching an Electron or similar sized small-sat vehicle permit it to orbit larger payloads?

3. Would air-launching an Electron in particular with a normal payload allow it to save enough fuel to conduct a reentry burn, slowing it enough to allow it to penetrate what Peter Beck called "the Wall"?

1. Per Wikipedia, Stratolaunch can carry a payload of 230,000 kg / 500,000 lb. Electron is 12,500 kg / 27,600 lb when fully fueled, so Yes.

2. Yes.

3. I'd guess yes, probably. However, that may not be necessary for recovery. It would most likely cost a lot more in modifying the Electron for an air launch than it would be worth.

Why not use Launcher one rockets, they are already built for air launch.

[whitelancer64]

Some questions for our assembled Space-geeks:

1. Could Roc carry a rocket on the scale of Rocketlab's Electron?

2. Would air-launching an Electron or similar sized small-sat vehicle permit it to orbit larger payloads?

3. Would air-launching an Electron in particular with a normal payload allow it to save enough fuel to conduct a reentry burn, slowing it enough to allow it to penetrate what Peter Beck called "the Wall"?

1. Per Wikipedia, Stratolaunch can carry a payload of 230,000 kg / 500,000 lb. Electron is 12,500 kg / 27,600 lb when fully fueled, so Yes.

2. Yes.

3. I'd guess yes, probably. However, that may not be necessary for recovery. It would most likely cost a lot more in modifying the Electron for an air launch than it would be worth.

Why not use Launcher one rockets, they are already built for air launch.

Because it already has a plane to launch it.

[ParabolicSnark]

1. Could Roc carry a rocket on the scale of Rocketlab's Electron?

2. Would air-launching an Electron or similar sized small-sat vehicle permit it to orbit larger payloads?

While Roc could carry an Electon, that's quite different from launching it. To air-launch from Roc, you need to:
1. Carry the rocket horizontally. Rocket tanks don't like doing this - they're optimized for being vertical. Rocket Lab's tanks are particularly thick and stiff due to the composites, so that may not be an immediate deal breaker.
2. You need attachment points to the carrier vehicle. These are not trivial. The hooks that hold LauncherOne to Cosmic Girl are huge! You're looking at specialized bulkheads in the vehicle to support this.
3. Propellant is now in the tanks in 2 orientations: along the side while the rocket is carried and at the bottom while thrusting. This means that the pressurization systems at the top of the tank are submerged during carry and drop. It also means that you have a bubble (your ullage) that you risk ingesting into your engine during startup (drag acts on the vehicle after drop; propellant moves forward in tank due to inertial).
4. You have to turn from a horizontal trajectory to a more conventional trajectory. This results in a huge (at least for a rocket) angle of attack during the early phases of flight (around MaxQ). Rockets don't like flying like this, so expect even more structure to be able to support the rocket without it buckling/bending in half.

Why not use Launcher one rockets, they are already built for air launch.

I don't think it makes sense from a business case. The only provider of LauncherOne's is Virgin Orbit, and they launch them directly. Launching from Roc doesn't get you any additional payload, so you'd be forced to pay Stratolaunch middle-man fees for zero value.

[Comga]

Haven't seen this one posted: https://www.geekwire.com/2019/stratolaunch-air-launch-venture-says-sold-paul-allens-vulcan-new-owner/

Stratolaunch reported the ownership handover today on Twitter and its website, without saying who the new owner is. However, information gleaned from the grapevine at Mojave Air and Space Port, where Stratolaunch’s flight operations are based, suggests that private investors are playing a role.

Later in that article, Geekwire is guessing that the new owner might be Northrop Grumman:

In the absence of other information, several factors suggest that Northrop Grumman may play a key role in the Stratolaunch transition. The company already has Scaled Composites as a subsidiary. It has long experience in air-launch systems by virtue of its acquisition of Orbital Sciences Corp. And according to Spaceflight Now, Northrop Grumman recently reacquired the Pegasus XL rockets it was assembling for Stratolaunch’s use.

I listed several issues that weigh against Pegasus in the NGIS section.  None of those objections would be remedied by purchasing a unique aircraft that is capable of carrying every Pegasus ever launched on one flight.
 
People objected to a minor point of that post.  If your point is merely correct, but doesn't change the conclusion, is it that important to "set the record straight"?

Northrup Grumman could find some other use for the Stratolaunch aircraft, but it's quite unlikely to be launching Pegasus vehicles.

[ChrisWilson68]

Perhaps VG added it to their air launch stable, Brandon has the deep pickets. Maybe to launch P2P testbeds?

Can we stop with assuming that VG or VO will want to buy Stratolaunch just because it looks like WhiteKnightTwo? Both those companies have their bases covered and don't want a half-billion dollar albatross around their neck.

If it was such an albatross I don’t think this company would still exist now. Someone must think there is a use in it.

There's a debate to be had about whether you'd consider the company in its current state as "existing". It was funded by a billionaire with a soft spot for space/aviation and the project essentially killed immediately after his passing. That indicates that his family/trust/board/holding company didn't think it was worth it and wanted to offload it to the first sucker they could find. Looks like they lucked out and found one, but who knows what their motives for it are?

So all you’re doing is making an assumption that these investors are a ‘sucker’ without any evidence to back it up.

No.  There's lots of evidence about Stratolaunch.  This other poster has reached a different conclusion than you about that evidence.

[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?

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.

Whether it's worth saving or not depends on a lot more factors than how far along the development is.

[Asteroza]

Has anyone been keeping an eye on the remaining beamed power propulsion players/investors? Using Roc to solve the first mile/first beaming station line-of-sight issues may be advantageous...

[Star One]

Perhaps VG added it to their air launch stable, Brandon has the deep pickets. Maybe to launch P2P testbeds?

Can we stop with assuming that VG or VO will want to buy Stratolaunch just because it looks like WhiteKnightTwo? Both those companies have their bases covered and don't want a half-billion dollar albatross around their neck.

If it was such an albatross I don’t think this company would still exist now. Someone must think there is a use in it.

There's a debate to be had about whether you'd consider the company in its current state as "existing". It was funded by a billionaire with a soft spot for space/aviation and the project essentially killed immediately after his passing. That indicates that his family/trust/board/holding company didn't think it was worth it and wanted to offload it to the first sucker they could find. Looks like they lucked out and found one, but who knows what their motives for it are?

So all you’re doing is making an assumption that these investors are a ‘sucker’ without any evidence to back it up.

No.  There's lots of evidence about Stratolaunch.  This other poster has reached a different conclusion than you about that evidence.

Point me to this alleged evidence which demonstrates. these investors are suckers. You two are making the allegations so back them up.

[ChrisWilson68]

Perhaps VG added it to their air launch stable, Brandon has the deep pickets. Maybe to launch P2P testbeds?

Can we stop with assuming that VG or VO will want to buy Stratolaunch just because it looks like WhiteKnightTwo? Both those companies have their bases covered and don't want a half-billion dollar albatross around their neck.

If it was such an albatross I don’t think this company would still exist now. Someone must think there is a use in it.

There's a debate to be had about whether you'd consider the company in its current state as "existing". It was funded by a billionaire with a soft spot for space/aviation and the project essentially killed immediately after his passing. That indicates that his family/trust/board/holding company didn't think it was worth it and wanted to offload it to the first sucker they could find. Looks like they lucked out and found one, but who knows what their motives for it are?

So all you’re doing is making an assumption that these investors are a ‘sucker’ without any evidence to back it up.

No.  There's lots of evidence about Stratolaunch.  This other poster has reached a different conclusion than you about that evidence.

Point me to this alleged evidence which demonstrates. these investors are suckers. You two are making the allegations so back them up.

The case that Stratolaunch is a bad investment has been made over and over in more than 100 pages of this thread.  There's no point in repeating it.  It's enough to point out that your claim that there is no evidence is incorrect.

[Eric Hedman]

The case that Stratolaunch is a bad investment has been made over and over in more than 100 pages of this thread.  There's no point in repeating it.  It's enough to point out that your claim that there is no evidence is incorrect.

Since you don't know what the plans of the new investors are, there is no evidence that anything in this thread even applies.

[Lars-J]

The case that Stratolaunch is a bad investment has been made over and over in more than 100 pages of this thread.  There's no point in repeating it.  It's enough to point out that your claim that there is no evidence is incorrect.

Since you don't know what the plans of the new investors are, there is no evidence that anything in this thread even applies.

There's no evidence it doesn't apply either... Wishful thinking is not enough, although that may power some of the investors too. (for now)

The fact that this is funded by a group of investors rather than an aerospace giant just makes it more likely they were sold the Brooklyn bridge. A lot of funding goes to bad projects. A project getting some funding and a limited lifeline is NOT proof of success.

[Eric Hedman]

The case that Stratolaunch is a bad investment has been made over and over in more than 100 pages of this thread.  There's no point in repeating it.  It's enough to point out that your claim that there is no evidence is incorrect.

Since you don't know what the plans of the new investors are, there is no evidence that anything in this thread even applies.

There's no evidence it doesn't apply either... Wishful thinking is not enough, although that may power some of the investors too. (for now)

The fact that this is funded by a group of investors rather than an aerospace giant just makes it more likely they were sold the Brooklyn bridge. A lot of funding goes to bad projects. A project getting some funding and a limited lifeline is NOT proof of success.

My point is that here is no evidence either way.  Until Stratolauncher announces what they are doing, everything is nothing but a wild guess which in my opinion is kind of pointless.  We have no idea if someone came up with a completely new use for their technology that no one else has considered.  Until they say something or someone leaks out what they're doing calling the investors suckers is not a good idea.  It may turn out that they will fail, but have a little patience and see what they come up with.  It will eventually come out.

[docmordrid]

Perhaps VG added it to their air launch stable, Brandon has the deep pickets. Maybe to launch P2P testbeds?

Can we stop with assuming that VG or VO will want to buy Stratolaunch just because it looks like WhiteKnightTwo? Both those companies have their bases covered and don't want a half-billion dollar albatross around their neck.

VG's bases are covered for launching SS2 and LauncherOne. I totally agree.

My speculation was for something larger - testing subscale prototypes of VG's Point-to-Point vehicle. Roc could allow test vehicles as large as Stratolaunch's Black Ice concept, a natural fit.

This is what VG presented to  middle eastern investors.

[Star One]

The case that Stratolaunch is a bad investment has been made over and over in more than 100 pages of this thread.  There's no point in repeating it.  It's enough to point out that your claim that there is no evidence is incorrect.

Since you don't know what the plans of the new investors are, there is no evidence that anything in this thread even applies.

There's no evidence it doesn't apply either... Wishful thinking is not enough, although that may power some of the investors too. (for now)

The fact that this is funded by a group of investors rather than an aerospace giant just makes it more likely they were sold the Brooklyn bridge. A lot of funding goes to bad projects. A project getting some funding and a limited lifeline is NOT proof of success.

My point is that here is no evidence either way.  Until Stratolauncher announces what they are doing, everything is nothing but a wild guess which in my opinion is kind of pointless.  We have no idea if someone came up with a completely new use for their technology that no one else has considered.  Until they say something or someone leaks out what they're doing calling the investors suckers is not a good idea.  It may turn out that they will fail, but have a little patience and see what they come up with.  It will eventually come out.

Precisely. All we are seeing at the moment is just speculation by posters one way or the other.

[Yazata]

My point is that here is no evidence either way.  Until Stratolauncher announces what they are doing, everything is nothing but a wild guess which in my opinion is kind of pointless.  We have no idea if someone came up with a completely new use for their technology that no one else has considered.  Until they say something or someone leaks out what they're doing calling the investors suckers is not a good idea.  It may turn out that they will fail, but have a little patience and see what they come up with.  It will eventually come out.

I agree pretty emphatically.

Presumably the new owners aren't idiots and presumably they already had some use in mind for for this aircraft before they decided to spend money to buy the company. We don't know who the company's new owners are or what their anticipated use for Stratolaunch's technology is. (Although speculating is always fun.) Despite all the Sturm und Drang, that's all we seem to have at the moment.

It's premature to assume that whatever emerges will succeed. And it's equally premature to dismiss it without any idea of what it is.

[meekGee]

The case that Stratolaunch is a bad investment has been made over and over in more than 100 pages of this thread.  There's no point in repeating it.  It's enough to point out that your claim that there is no evidence is incorrect.

Since you don't know what the plans of the new investors are, there is no evidence that anything in this thread even applies.

There's no evidence it doesn't apply either... Wishful thinking is not enough, although that may power some of the investors too. (for now)

The fact that this is funded by a group of investors rather than an aerospace giant just makes it more likely they were sold the Brooklyn bridge. A lot of funding goes to bad projects. A project getting some funding and a limited lifeline is NOT proof of success.

My point is that here is no evidence either way.  Until Stratolauncher announces what they are doing, everything is nothing but a wild guess which in my opinion is kind of pointless.  We have no idea if someone came up with a completely new use for their technology that no one else has considered.  Until they say something or someone leaks out what they're doing calling the investors suckers is not a good idea.  It may turn out that they will fail, but have a little patience and see what they come up with.  It will eventually come out.

Precisely. All we are seeing at the moment is just speculation by posters one way or the other.

There is a vast difference between "people speculating one way or the other" and "both sides are (equally) plausible".

There is a ton of rationale why this operation is not viable. I haven't seen rationale as to why it is, other than wishful thinking and "it hasn't been proven that it isn't".

I don't care if the new investor is private or institutional or aerospace.  In this rapidly transforming space, there isn't room for expendable rockets, and winged carrier aircraft bring nothing to the table.

[Eric Hedman]

I don't care if the new investor is private or institutional or aerospace.  In this rapidly transforming space, there isn't room for expendable rockets, and winged carrier aircraft bring nothing to the table.

And you know that their intent is still to launch rockets from this aircraft?  Have they told you this?

[xyv]

Right.  All we know is somebody has gotten ownership of the plane/company assets.  We don't know their intent for this and we don't know what it cost.  Remember, the original Iridium constellation bankrupted the company; it became viable when the constellation was bought out of bankruptcy at fire sale prices.  Somebody else's capital loss can become a viable business proposition for a new investor.

[Star One]

I don't care if the new investor is private or institutional or aerospace.  In this rapidly transforming space, there isn't room for expendable rockets, and winged carrier aircraft bring nothing to the table.

And you know that their intent is still to launch rockets from this aircraft?  Have they told you this?

I am guessing the answer to both of those is no.