Stratolaunch: General Company and Development Updates and Discussions

[TrevorMonty]

My pick is AJR and Firefly for launching Beta. Saves them building two separate launch pads to service most common orbits.

[meekGee]

This speculation is getting interesting.  Any of the companies working on hypersonic weapons could be the investor or investors.  Another possibility is someone invested potentially marketing use of the aircraft to any of the players.  If these possibilities are where this is going, much of the work will be classified.  We might not hear much out of them for a long time.  If they stay quiet then these possibilities become more likely.  Damn we live in interesting times!  I love it.

So all these companies - how were they going to test their designs before Roc supposedly became their savior?

[Eric Hedman]

This speculation is getting interesting.  Any of the companies working on hypersonic weapons could be the investor or investors.  Another possibility is someone invested potentially marketing use of the aircraft to any of the players.  If these possibilities are where this is going, much of the work will be classified.  We might not hear much out of them for a long time.  If they stay quiet then these possibilities become more likely.  Damn we live in interesting times!  I love it.

So all these companies - how were they going to test their designs before Roc supposedly became their savior?

Subscale versions launched from a B-52 for one.  Integrate with a more expensive launch vehicle.  Put more weight into computational fluid dynamics which is not perfect.  None of which are as good as having the larger lift capacity for testing that Roc provides.

If the point to point concept Virgin Glacatic is working on with Boeing is going to need a carrier aircraft bigger than White Knight Two, testing it flying from Roc could save a lot of time and money before needing to develop a dedicated carrier aircraft.  It just opens more options to test concepts because of its size.  Whether this will be a big enough market fast enough, if this really is what the new owners want to do, is still too early to tell.  But I wouldn't be surprised if this turns out to be the case.

I personally with my businesses have engaged the VC market.  If you look at what VCs invest in and then which ones succeed it is often a big surprise.  The people who run these funds have told me they are often surprised by which investment pays off and which ones don't.  I've learned from this process to not assume I know what is going on inside of companies from outside information.  I don't assume I know what the people investing know.  I admit I'm guessing based upon my experience.  And no I don't think Roc is any company's savior.  I think it might just be an easier path that may be worth putting money into.  Time will tell.  And I wish them luck.  I know how hard it is to get a company up and running from personal experience.

[jak Kennedy]

Any guesses as to how long the owner of the world's largest airplane can keep their identity a secret?

100% guaranteed it’s not Branson. 

[libra]

folks, just for the fun of it...

I took one of the old N-1 Kuneztsov-powered, kerolox upper stages (from this website, no idea if their numbers are valid or way out in the blue)

http://www.b14643.de/Spacerockets_1/East_Europe_2/N-1/Description/Frame.htm

If they are correct, then see attached. Hanging a Block V below Stratolaunch, and applying the maximum air-launch delta-v boost of 1100 m/s (see attached picture)

Stratolaunch Roc could boost 9 mt to LEO with a single rocket stage (although non recoverable).

What can you launch with that ? A little too small for CTS-100 and Dragon 2 (how frustrating !), but enough for... a Soyuz or a Shenzhou. On the non-manned side, there is the coming ESA Space Rider at 4 mt. Frack, the X-37B is light enough, too at 5 mt / 11 000 pounds.

Makes one think.  Stratolaunch failed because all the rockets proposed were multistage monstrosities, having just one single stage would help on that matter. And this with an isp of 345 seconds: the new Soyuz upper stage engine, the RD-0124, can do  a whopping 359 seconds with 30 mt of thrust. Way to go.

http://www.russianspaceweb.com/rd0124.html

Eureka ! URM-2
https://www.spacelaunchreport.com/angara.html
http://www.russianspaceweb.com/angara_urm2.html

Air-launch a freakkin' URM-2 from Stratolaunch and performance should be rather impressive.

[TorenAltair]

Perhaps it‘s already too late here and I‘m already sleeping, but two questions:
How do you get 1100 m/s with the Roc? That‘s about Mach 3.
How do you get the rocket to orbit with 185t mass and about 165t thrust without enormous gravity losses?

[brickmack]

folks, just for the fun of it...

I took one of the old N-1 Kuneztsov-powered, kerolox upper stages (from this website, no idea if their numbers are valid or way out in the blue)

http://www.b14643.de/Spacerockets_1/East_Europe_2/N-1/Description/Frame.htm

If they are correct, then see attached. Hanging a Block V below Stratolaunch, and applying the maximum air-launch delta-v boost of 1100 m/s (see attached picture)

Stratolaunch Roc could boost 9 mt to LEO with a single rocket stage (although non recoverable).

What can you launch with that ? A little too small for CTS-100 and Dragon 2 (how frustrating !), but enough for... a Soyuz or a Shenzhou. On the non-manned side, there is the coming ESA Space Rider at 4 mt. Frack, the X-37B is light enough, too at 5 mt / 11 000 pounds.

Makes one think.  Stratolaunch failed because all the rockets proposed were multistage monstrosities, having just one single stage would help on that matter. And this with an isp of 345 seconds: the new Soyuz upper stage engine, the RD-0124, can do  a whopping 359 seconds with 30 mt of thrust. Way to go.

http://www.russianspaceweb.com/rd0124.html

Eureka ! URM-2
https://www.spacelaunchreport.com/angara.html
http://www.russianspaceweb.com/angara_urm2.html

Air-launch a freakkin' URM-2 from Stratolaunch and performance should be rather impressive.

SSTOs are definitely the only way air launch can be practical. Too hard to recover a booster otherwise, and no point in an expendable rocket. But an expendable SSTO is the worst of all options, and pre-separation supersonic boost is not an option without a custom aircraft design.

The original Black Ice concept for Stratolaunch is pretty good as-is, just need funding.

[libra]

Folks, I didn't suggested to drive the roc to supersonic flight, that would be suicide. That enormous thing ain't build for that. Admittedly the number is misleading.
Here is my source

Marti Sarigul-Klinj research.
See the following link (page 387 in the pdf)
https://engineering.purdue.edu/AAECourses/aae450/2008/spring/report_archive/reportfinaluploads/pdfs/Report_Section_7.pdf

A study by Klijn et al. concluded that at an altitude of 15,250 m, a rocket launch with the carrier
vehicle having a zero launch velocity at an angle of attack of 0° to the horizontal experienced a
Δv benefit of approximately 600m/s while a launch at a velocity of 340m/s at the same altitude
and angle of attack resulted in a Δv benefit of approximately 900m/s. The zero launch velocity
situations can be used to represent the launch from a balloon as it has no horizontal velocity.
Furthermore, by increasing the angle of attack of the carrier vehicle to 30° and launching at
340m/s, they obtained a Δv gain of approximately 1,100m/s. Increasing the launch velocity to
681m/s and 1,021m/s produced a Δv gain of 1,600m/s and 2,000m/s respectively.

Gravity losses are included in the 9000 m/s, since basic delta-v to orbit is 7800 m/s. they are the difference btween the two numbers (plus drag and steering).

[LouScheffer]

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.

I agree that expendable, air-launched rockets make no economic sense for the commercial market.

Perhaps the unnamed investors include the DoD through In-Q-Tel or some front company! Wild speculation on my part.

So I think this is the likely scenario.  Air launch can do some things the Cape and Vandenburg cannot.  They don't need to put out public schedules days in advance.  They can launch on short notice, even if the existing ranges are occupied.  They can launch into any azimuth at any time.  They can launch without anyone knowing (or at least anyone without their own surveillance satellites).  They can launch without taxpayers knowing of failures (if Zuma was air-launched by a military-centric subsidiary, we might never have known it failed).  All of these are pretty useless to the commercial satellite industry, but might be interesting to the military, even if they are not cost effective for commercial launches.
 

[Kryten]

So I think this is the likely scenario.  Air launch can do some things the Cape and Vandenburg cannot.  They don't need to put out public schedules days in advance.  They can launch on short notice, even if the existing ranges are occupied.  They can launch into any azimuth at any time.  They can launch without anyone knowing (or at least anyone without their own surveillance satellites).  They can launch without taxpayers knowing of failures (if Zuma was air-launched by a military-centric subsidiary, we might never have known it failed).  All of these are pretty useless to the commercial satellite industry, but might be interesting to the military, even if they are not cost effective for commercial launches.

These kinds of arguments popped up when stratolaunch was first announced, they've never really made a lot of sense. The air force can't launch anything without at least NOTAMs and the like; and the idea that the world's largest ever aircraft-which can only use the world's largest hangar, at a public airport-leaving with a rocket and coming back without one represents a covert capability is just ludicrous

[TrevorMonty]

Folks, I didn't suggested to drive the roc to supersonic flight, that would be suicide. That enormous thing ain't build for that. Admittedly the number is misleading.
Here is my source

Marti Sarigul-Klinj research.
See the following link (page 387 in the pdf)
https://engineering.purdue.edu/AAECourses/aae450/2008/spring/report_archive/reportfinaluploads/pdfs/Report_Section_7.pdf

A study by Klijn et al. concluded that at an altitude of 15,250 m, a rocket launch with the carrier
vehicle having a zero launch velocity at an angle of attack of 0° to the horizontal experienced a
Δv benefit of approximately 600m/s while a launch at a velocity of 340m/s at the same altitude
and angle of attack resulted in a Δv benefit of approximately 900m/s. The zero launch velocity
situations can be used to represent the launch from a balloon as it has no horizontal velocity.
Furthermore, by increasing the angle of attack of the carrier vehicle to 30° and launching at
340m/s, they obtained a Δv gain of approximately 1,100m/s. Increasing the launch velocity to
681m/s and 1,021m/s produced a Δv gain of 1,600m/s and 2,000m/s respectively.

Gravity losses are included in the 9000 m/s, since basic delta-v to orbit is 7800 m/s. they are the difference btween the two numbers (plus drag and steering).

Can add little more for ability to launch on equator for GEO missions.

[libra]

Probably closer from 7 mt or 8 mt, to be honest. Still expendable SSTO. At least much less stages to build and rebuild.
Wonder if the stage could be recovered with a giant IRDT inflatable heatshield...

[JEF_300]

So I think this is the likely scenario.  Air launch can do some things the Cape and Vandenburg cannot.  They don't need to put out public schedules days in advance.  They can launch on short notice, even if the existing ranges are occupied.  They can launch into any azimuth at any time.  They can launch without anyone knowing (or at least anyone without their own surveillance satellites).  They can launch without taxpayers knowing of failures (if Zuma was air-launched by a military-centric subsidiary, we might never have known it failed).  All of these are pretty useless to the commercial satellite industry, but might be interesting to the military, even if they are not cost effective for commercial launches.

These kinds of arguments popped up when stratolaunch was first announced, they've never really made a lot of sense. The air force can't launch anything without at least NOTAMs and the like; and the idea that the world's largest ever aircraft-which can only use the world's largest hangar, at a public airport-leaving with a rocket and coming back without one represents a covert capability is just ludicrous

The Air Force and CIA have had a long and successful history of flying gigantic top secret aircraft without anyone knowing. I'm sure they could if they decided they wanted to do so. Especially if the biggest thing standing in their way is that there isn't a big enough hangar at a non-public runway.

As for NOTAMS, does the Air Force file NOTAMs when flying B-2s? Did they when they flew the SR-71? I'm gonna guess that the CIA didn't when they flew U-2s, but the CIA were pretty crazy in the 60s.

[LouScheffer]

[...] the idea that the world's largest ever aircraft-which can only use the world's largest hangar, at a public airport-leaving with a rocket and coming back without one represents a covert capability is just ludicrous

Remember the Glomar Explorer?  It did exactly what you state is ludicrous - it was a very large publically known ship, based out of known harbors, that performed a covert mission.  They key is to have some cover story, then what you do when you get out over the Pacific can remain unknown.  In this case the cover story might by hypersonic testing, as suggested above, or drop tests of large objects (perhaps for RCS testing), or ferrying stuff that won't fit in a regular plane, etc.   And if the supposed mission is best performed at some remote island, all the public sees is that the plane departs, then comes back a month later, with not clue what it did in the meantime.

[libra]

And as I noted above, the X-37 at 4 mt could easily be launched from a Stratolaunch Roc with only a single stage rocket to orbit... even expendable, having only one rocket stage to mate and integrate helps, somewhat. Only one stage to fill, less separation events and firings...

[Stan-1967]

for what it is worth ( not much maybe) The USAF is supposedly looking for an "Arsenal Plane". 
Article here:
http://www.airforcemag.com/Features/Pages/2019/November%202019/USAF-Leaders-Considering-Arsenal-Plane-Options.aspx

Stratolaunch could offer some very useful external mounting capability for this, but I suspect the most modern & upgraded B-52's are more survivable.

[jstrotha0975]

for what it is worth ( not much maybe) The USAF is supposedly looking for an "Arsenal Plane". 
Article here:
http://www.airforcemag.com/Features/Pages/2019/November%202019/USAF-Leaders-Considering-Arsenal-Plane-Options.aspx

Stratolaunch could offer some very useful external mounting capability for this, but I suspect the most modern & upgraded B-52's are more survivable.

Makes even more sense to use B-1's as arsenal planes. They are planning to retire them when the B-21 becomes operational.

[Stan-1967]

The article seemed to indicate that "mobility" air assets were being considered for the "Arsenal" craft, so I take that to mean airframes like C-130's or C-17's.  If those are under consideration, it seems the complexity & cost of a B-1 is not what they have in mind.  However the drawback of cargo aircraft was having to primarily try and deploy weapons out of the back ramp.  Stratolaunch's purpose built air launch capability  seems a uniquely qualified platform to mount a very large capacity rotary weapons dispenser down the centerline. 

[ncb1397]

The article seemed to indicate that "mobility" air assets were being considered for the "Arsenal" craft, so I take that to mean airframes like C-130's or C-17's.  If those are under consideration, it seems the complexity & cost of a B-1 is not what they have in mind.  However the drawback of cargo aircraft was having to primarily try and deploy weapons out of the back ramp.  Stratolaunch's purpose built air launch capability  seems a uniquely qualified platform to mount a very large capacity rotary weapons dispenser down the centerline.

You probably wouldn't need a rotary launcher. You have over 100 feet of wingspan between the fuselages which is enough to fit over 50 air launched cruise missiles side by side.

[Stan-1967]

You probably wouldn't need a rotary launcher. You have over 100 feet of wingspan between the fuselages which is enough to fit over 50 air launched cruise missiles side by side.

That would be preferable, but do hardpoints need to be integrated into the wing structure at the outset of vehicle design?  Stratolaunch was designed to carry a large mass on the centerline, not under the wings, so not sure that can just be strapped on.