Also, if only a few major airports had a capable runway
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).
Now that it looks like it might actually be realistic and affordable,
Quote from: go4mars on 12/14/2011 10:11 pmExpand a still from the media to your full screen and measure the ratios. If the wingspan is 117 meters, then the rocket they show there is 5 meters diameter in my estimation. It isn't, it is a F9 type core
Expand a still from the media to your full screen and measure the ratios. If the wingspan is 117 meters, then the rocket they show there is 5 meters diameter in my estimation.
Quote from: go4mars on 12/14/2011 10:11 pmAlso, if only a few major airports had a capable runwayActually there is a lot of redundant ex-B52 airfields available for conversion to operate the Stratolaunch carrier aircraft.Think a runway wide enough to be able to accommodate the outrigger landing gears of a B52 should do the same for the Stratolaunch.
I don't know, but suspect that Paul Allen wants these companies to do the development work at cost on this project. No profit until maybe some type of profit-sharing arrangement in the far future. Easy to see how Elon would be agreeable to that (keeps guys busy and creates an ideal fly-back-booster drop test carrier). The more rockets he launches, the more statistics and tests he has. Plus it's just frickin' cool. And Elon likes frickin' cool stuff. The feathered re-entry license doesn't hurt either.Easy to see how scaled composites would be interested in that arrangement too. If they develop this thing, they could potentially build a bunch of the big aircraft to launch all sorts of stuff. George Whitesides at VG for example, has been clear that orbital is the eventual goal too. Plus there might be military customers (Ultra-Massive-Ordinance-Penetrators anyone?)UMOP's might be an extra reason for Dynetics to be attracted to such an arrangement. Or maybe they would be cost-plus. Not as easy to see their benefit other than as an exceptional advertisement of their capability. Any way you slice it, one observation keeps hitting me: It would be cool to have enough loot laying around that as a hobby, you could buy a couple 747's and hire a bunch of smart people to build something cool out of them (like the worlds largest aircraft that doubles as an orbital rocket launcher). Too Cool!!
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.pdfhttp://www.pmview.com/spaceodysseytwo/spacelvs/sld039.htm
Based on the point design vehicle results, payloads up to 15,000 lbs can be obtained using a much larger two-stage system that is empty of fuel at takeoff and utilizing a tanker for in-air fueling of the carrier or the launch vehicle.The major cost of a subsonic horizontal take-off space launch is the launch vehicle. To use these for horizontal launch, aerodynamic surfaces and other structures are added to enable separation and pull-up maneuvers. These additions, along with the need for a carrieraircraft, have the potential to make horizontal launch a more expensive option. However, horizontal launch provides the potential for improved basing flexibility, covert launch, weather avoidance, and offset launch for orbital intercept and reconnaissance that may outweigh any increased cost.andSalkeld regarded advanced airbreathing propulsion as less cost-effective than tripropellant rocket engines. He noted that although airbreathing LVs offer several potential advantages over rockets (=reduced takeoff noise, compatibility with existing airport facilities, convential aircraft type HTHL operations, reduced acceleration profile during ascent), hypersonic ramjet engines cannot evolve as direct outgrowths of supersonic airliner or Space Shuttle technology. The aerodynamics (e.g. interaction between engine & airframe) and thermal protection problems also would require new technologies whereas SSTO rocketplanes could be based directly on Shuttle systems such as high-pressure SSMEs, thermal protection tiles etc.. Salkeld concluded high-speed airbreathing RLVs have to be large (=sonic boom problem during climbout & acceleration), and the engines will be much heavier and probably require advanced technologies that will not be available for another 20-30 years. Ground launched SSTO generally seemed more economical than air-launched vehicles although they may offer some operational advantages (e.g. mobile platforms) for small space payloads and suborbital missions. For TSTOs, Salkeld found the GLOW is mimimized at Mach 5 separation if the booster uses jet fuel and Mach 7-8 for LH2 platforms. The hydrogen booster showed clear weight reductions compared to JP bosters. Tripropellant engines may significantly reduce the overall mass of air launched RLVs (e.g. 25-30% orbiter dry mass reduction in the super/hypersonic regime). Salkeld found that hypersonic HTHL TSTOs offer GLOW reductions of 50% compared to SSTO rockets, but the dry weight (and hence cost) is 100-300% higher. He dismissed in-flight refueling and airbreathing-rocket launch platforms since they require technologies which will not be available for 2 or 3 decades. Marginal cost/lb payload estimates (185km polar orbit): $130 for fully reusable Phase B VTHL TSTO Shuttle, $1258 for the Space Shuttle, $76 for triprop. HTHL SSTO, $135-137 for Mach 6-9 HTHL TSTOs.
Some people have asked if I'm involved, or AirLaunch or t/Space. The answer is no to all three.Perhaps someday I can comment, but not today. NDAs and confidences are involved. Sorry.
Quote from: Zed_Noir on 12/15/2011 05:44 amQuote from: go4mars on 12/14/2011 10:11 pmAlso, if only a few major airports had a capable runwayActually there is a lot of redundant ex-B52 airfields available for conversion to operate the Stratolaunch carrier aircraft.Think a runway wide enough to be able to accommodate the outrigger landing gears of a B52 should do the same for the Stratolaunch.Funny you mentioned the airfields. I thought that a twin B-52 would make an interesting conversion as well for a launch aircraft. I don’t know of any in private hands though yet, it is still an active aircraft in service.
Article from PM...http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/space/rockets/new-space-company-stratolaunch-will-launch-orbital-rockets-from-twin-747s-6615736
Their sights are set on ferrying humans to orbit by 2020.
Speaking of which, it can carry a 223 tonne rocket... So it means some 20-25 tonnes to LEO should be doable, am I right?
Quote from: baldusi on 12/14/2011 11:57 amI 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).That easily solved. Shorten the wingspan by building the world's biggest biplane.
Quote from: kkattula on 12/15/2011 05:54 amQuote from: baldusi on 12/14/2011 11:57 amI 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).That easily solved. Shorten the wingspan by building the world's biggest biplane. I wonder if folding wings (ala some carrier airplanes) would help. Since they're building the wing themselves, adding the wing folding capability might help. At least for maneuvering on the ground on the way to the runway. But I'm by no means an expert in wingy-things.~Jon
If all else fails, maybe you could use it to carry submarines
I wonder if folding wings (ala some carrier airplanes) would help. Since they're building the wing themselves, adding the wing folding capability might help. At least for maneuvering on the ground on the way to the runway. But I'm by no means an expert in wingy-things.~Jon
