Stratolaunch: General Company and Development Updates and Discussions

[Nomadd]

 Does that video make any sense? It and the AWST article says 13,500 lbs, but show the system launching a Dragon. Isn't that payload kind of light for a Dragon with any usefull payload? Even the M1c F9 at 22,000 lb can't lift one with full fuel and published payload.

[baldusi]

I fogot to mention that there's an international standard for airports of an 80m square box. This means that if you go past that box, there's no guarantee whatsoever that the airport will accept your aircraft. This means FOD dangers on the runway, passages between buildings, and hangar doors and such. So this aircraft has no possibility of being used as anything else than launcher and very special cargo (think an-225 sort of cargo).
There's one "limitation", of the an-225 is the 4.4m height of the payload bay. I mean, what sort of payloads are bigger than 4.4m? Very few, and a trip of the an-225 is in the 200k range. So I don't think this would be a very cheap approach to move rockets around. But they must have their motives.

[Chris Bergin]

Ok, so we'll work on that larger piece for later. I've written up a short baseline for the announcement.

http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2011/12/stratolaunch-rutan-designed-air-launched-system-falcon-rockets/

Thanks Chris. That's a much easier read than going through this thread

Cheers Paul.

Surprisingly lukewarm thread at that too!

[Kaputnik]

So this Falcon will have feathers?

http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story_channel.jsp?channel=space&id=news/awx/2011/12/13/awx_12_13_2011_p0-405946.xml&headline=Stratolaunch%20Aims%20to%20Break%20Affordability%20Barrier&next=10

"Rutan said the human-rated Falcon system will fly the “feathered” low-drag re-entry profile he used for SpaceShipOne."

"What type of thermal protective system the man-rated winged Falcon will require is unclear."

Is everyone singing from the same hymn sheet? Is the rocket stage going to be reusable or not?

[wolfpack]

- Ed Kyle had an astute point about fuel and landing in case of a post-takeoff abort. Maximum landing weights are typically substantially less than maximum takeoff weights.

Aircraft are capable of landing overweight - just not repeatedly. The preference is to always burn off or dump fuel, but if you ABSOLUTELY have to get back on the ground you can do it. Yes, you'll bend metal and it'll be headed for the scrapyard but if everything's done right you won't be having any funerals.

[Rocket Science]

So this Falcon will have feathers?

http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story_channel.jsp?channel=space&id=news/awx/2011/12/13/awx_12_13_2011_p0-405946.xml&headline=Stratolaunch%20Aims%20to%20Break%20Affordability%20Barrier&next=10

"Rutan said the human-rated Falcon system will fly the “feathered” low-drag re-entry profile he used for SpaceShipOne."

"What type of thermal protective system the man-rated winged Falcon will require is unclear."

Is everyone singing from the same hymn sheet? Is the rocket stage going to be reusable or not?

If we are all asking the same questions, I guess the presser was rushed with all the facts not presented clearly.

[jabe]

Interesting quote from WSJ artitcle

The cost of developing such a mammoth plane, Mr. Rutan added, "historically had been judged as prohibitive." But the logjam broke after engineers came up with "innovative processes to build very large structures" out of composite materials, according to the veteran designer. "Now, it's quite affordable," Mr. Rutan said, and that's one of the reasons the Stratolaunch team decided to lift the veil on the plans.

I wonder what the process was.
jb

[RanulfC]

How many airports can support spacecraft processing and propellant loading?

Look at it this way, would this be able to operate out of LAX, which is right next to Boeing and Northrup Grumman or DEN for LM? 

The infrastructure is going to be the same as a pad and launch site.  Will need LOX and RP-1 tanks/spheres next to the runway, there will need to be a "hot pad" so that the launch vehicle can be loaded with the propellants away from other areas and structures.  This same area can be used for spacecraft to launch vehicle mate. 

Trying to catch up on the thead but real quick:
The infrastructure actually is NOT going to be the same as needed for a fixed pad really. Number one, most major airports have a "haz-cargo" handling and loading/unloading facility attached. Number two it was admitted in the documentation and conference that there are going to be a limited number of airports this can operate from but that's a runway restriction more than anything else. Number three, they won't need LOX/RP-1 "spheres" as the rocket as well as the carrier aircraft can be filled with standard tanker trucks like any other aircraft.

Possible "sticking" points are going to be FAA sign-off on LOXing operations and carrying LOX in flight.

Randy

[mr. mark]

Scale comparison

[Jim]

Trying to catch up on the thead but real quick:
The infrastructure actually is NOT going to be the same as needed for a fixed pad really. Number one, most major airports have a "haz-cargo" handling and loading/unloading facility attached. Number two it was admitted in the documentation and conference that there are going to be a limited number of airports this can operate from but that's a runway restriction more than anything else. Number three, they won't need LOX/RP-1 "spheres" as the rocket as well as the carrier aircraft can be filled with standard tanker trucks like any other aircraft.

Possible "sticking" points are going to be FAA sign-off on LOXing operations and carrying LOX in flight.

Randy

Wrong again.  It is going to be the same.  LOX spheres will be required. Same goes for GN2 and He cylinders.   There is a reason launch vehicles don't use tanker trucks.  Also, RP

Most airports don't have "haz-cargo" handling and loading/unloading facility sized for this or for processing spacecraft.

[Lee Jay]

Interesting quote from WSJ artitcle

The cost of developing such a mammoth plane, Mr. Rutan added, "historically had been judged as prohibitive." But the logjam broke after engineers came up with "innovative processes to build very large structures" out of composite materials, according to the veteran designer. "Now, it's quite affordable," Mr. Rutan said, and that's one of the reasons the Stratolaunch team decided to lift the veil on the plans.

I wonder what the process was.
jb

Don't know, but we regularly build fiberglass composite wind turbine blades of lengths 40-65 meters each for a very low cost per pound (like $6).

[sanman]

If all else fails, maybe you could use it to carry submarines 

Suppose you don't want to send your sub thru the Panama Canal, or thru the Suez Canal, or around the Cape of Good Hope, or around Tiera Del Fuego. Just hook it up to Stratolaunch, and fly it wherever you want.

Gee, come to think of it, wouldn't Stratolaunch be better as a giant seaplane, like Spruce Goose? Could eliminate landing-gear weight.

[hektor]

They can replace the launcher by a cargo pod an d carry oversized payloads ? Airbus airframes and wings ?

[Rocket Science]

If you are going to aquire 747's why not just join two 747s together with a new center section and add two more engine plyons. Why do you need the expense of designing a whole new aircraft?

Regards
Robert

[rdale]

If you are going to aquire 747's why not just join two 747s together with a new center section and add two more engine plyons. Why do you need the expense of designing a whole new aircraft?

You think it would be easier to design conjoined 747's which were never intended to be joined, than going new? Hmmm... My reply is much more polite than what you would get posting on an aircraft engineering forum

[jongoff]

I wonder where computers or even airplanes would be if people in those fields were as used to drawing hasty generalizations from single data points.

"Sam Langley's Aerodrome didn't work out, so that obviously shows that heavier than air flight can't work"...

How about
"I think there is a world market for maybe five computers", Thomas J. Watson, IBM CEO, 1943

Yeah, I mean there is a legitimate rejoinder to these anecdotes "They laughed at Columbus, but they also laughed at Bozo the Clown", but personally I think that people who haven't studied the problem in detail making handwavy dismissals based off of a single execution attempt is just plain ridiculous.

~Jon

[kevin-rf]

If you are going to aquire 747's why not just join two 747s together with a new center section and add two more engine plyons. Why do you need the expense of designing a whole new aircraft?

You think it would be easier to design conjoined 747's which were never intended to be joined, than going new? Hmmm... My reply is much more polite than what you would get posting on an aircraft engineering forum

Better yet, the 747 is a low wing plane, this application needs a high winged plane. Either you have some gawd awful landing gear or something equally weird.

[jongoff]

Interesting quote from WSJ artitcle

The cost of developing such a mammoth plane, Mr. Rutan added, "historically had been judged as prohibitive." But the logjam broke after engineers came up with "innovative processes to build very large structures" out of composite materials, according to the veteran designer. "Now, it's quite affordable," Mr. Rutan said, and that's one of the reasons the Stratolaunch team decided to lift the veil on the plans.

I wonder what the process was.
jb

Don't know, but we regularly build fiberglass composite wind turbine blades of lengths 40-65 meters each for a very low cost per pound (like $6).

Yeah, I was going to say that the wind turbine blades I was seeing in Mojave were mind-blowingly ginormous, and they were cranking those out like they were going out of style.

~Jon

[Rocket Science]

If you are going to aquire 747's why not just join two 747s together with a new center section and add two more engine plyons. Why do you need the expense of designing a whole new aircraft?

You think it would be easier to design conjoined 747's which were never intended to be joined, than going new? Hmmm... My reply is much more polite than what you would get posting on an aircraft engineering forum

Better yet, the 747 is a low wing plane, this application needs a high winged plane. Either you have some gawd awful landing gear or something equally weird.

Here is a proposal using twin C-5’s. I guess if Burt could get his hands on those…
http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/20110015353_2011016245.pdf

P.S. On the 747 you could mount the Falcon above the center wing section and have it slide back off a rack at launch.

[Robotbeat]

Airplanes aren't Legos.