Stratolaunch: General Company and Development Updates and Discussions

[Jim]

No, the whole point is to use the plane to change the flight path angle.  Using the rocket to accelerate of the mass of the plane (beyond the flight path angle change) is counter productive.

[go4mars]

No, the whole point is to use the plane to change the flight path angle.

   Do you mean starting the rocket from ~a tangent to the earth?  Launch-location flexibility for getting to certain orbits more easily? 

Using the rocket to accelerate of the mass of the plane (beyond the flight path angle change) is counter productive.

  What about if oxygen was pumped in from the stratolauncher as well as RP-1 (rocket let go higher, faster, and still completely full)? 

[Zed_Noir]

Question for folks. Is the Stratolaunch flight profile similar to the F15 ASAT launch flight profile? Or is it more similar to the F15 Streak Eagle zoom climb flight profile.

[Jim]

Do you mean starting the rocket from ~a tangent to the earth?

  What about if oxygen was pumped in from the stratolauncher as well as RP-1 (rocket let go higher, faster, and still completely full)? 

No, to go from level flight to a pull up.  That is real performance benefit is.  The launch vehicle doesn't get "dropped", it is "pointed" in the proper flight path angle

no,
A. just fly the rocket free and clear of the airplane
b.  impacts the design of the aircraft (don't want to go supersonic)

[Jim]

Question for folks. Is the Stratolaunch flight profile similar to the F15 ASAT launch flight profile? Or is it more similar to the F15 Streak Eagle zoom climb flight profile.

Neither, it is similar to a B-52/Pegasus profile with a pull up.

[Diagoras]

Do we know if SpaceX is merely a subcontractor, or if it has signed on for risk-bearing development? Does its presence on the board imply the latter in any way?

[ugordan]

Subcontractor.

[simonbp]

I have a question: is this Stratolaunch carrier craft sized for future growth of the rocket diameter-wise? It seems to me as if it is.

It certainly looks so as far as horizontal (spanwise) growth; the fuselages are much further apart than they need to be otherwise. A lifting-body-style first stage would provide plenty of volume for a recoverable LH2 first stage. And, it should be said, an LH2 vehicle would needed to carry crew, as is their stated intention. I'm not sure that the aircraft could lift the mass of RP-1 need for a crew vehicle.

If Stratolaunch is a success, I have no doubt they'll push for a fully reusable system sooner rather than later. Their focus right now, though, is on getting the minimum system working, which means subcontracting the booster for the time being.

A logical plan of action for them would then be for them to get the Falcon-based system fully operational by 2017-ish. Then, using lessons learned, Scaled/Northrup Grumman could develop a reusable first stage to bring the system to Atlas V/Falcon 9 performance levels.

[Rocket Science]

I have a question: is this Stratolaunch carrier craft sized for future growth of the rocket diameter-wise? It seems to me as if it is.

It certainly looks so as far as horizontal (spanwise) growth; the fuselages are much further apart than they need to be otherwise. A lifting-body-style first stage would provide plenty of volume for a recoverable LH2 first stage. And, it should be said, an LH2 vehicle would needed to carry crew, as is their stated intention. I'm not sure that the aircraft could lift the mass of RP-1 need for a crew vehicle.

If Stratolaunch is a success, I have no doubt they'll push for a fully reusable system sooner rather than later. Their focus right now, though, is on getting the minimum system working, which means subcontracting the booster for the time being.

A logical plan of action for them would then be for them to get the Falcon-based system fully operational by 2017-ish. Then, using lessons learned, Scaled/Northrup Grumman could develop a reusable first stage to bring the system to Atlas V/Falcon 9 performance levels.

Something like this Simon?
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=27477.0

[Dalon]

It certainly looks so as far as horizontal (spanwise) growth; the fuselages are much further apart than they need to be otherwise. A lifting-body-style first stage would provide plenty of volume for a recoverable LH2 first stage. And, it should be said, an LH2 vehicle would needed to carry crew, as is their stated intention. I'm not sure that the aircraft could lift the mass of RP-1 need for a crew vehicle.

It makes me suspect they have a truly massive cargo module in the works.  Something that can quickly attach to the same hard point as the rocket and fill most of the void between the dual hulls.  A container of that scale would almost certainly carry more volume than any air cargo system currently in use.

There's been a lot of comment bemoaning how few airports at which this bird could land.  In truth, the surprising fact is how many airports in the US this bird could use for cargo operations.

There are a surprising number of 2 mile long runways in the US.  Many of them are former SAC bases.  There are also a large number of civilian airports with runways designed for dual civilian / military use.   In addition, military airports can and have been used for civilian operations.  Further, some significant proportion of this oversize cargo work may in fact be for the military.

If Stratolaunch is a success, I have no doubt they'll push for a fully reusable system sooner rather than later. Their focus right now, though, is on getting the minimum system working, which means subcontracting the booster for the time being.

A logical plan of action for them would then be for them to get the Falcon-based system fully operational by 2017-ish. Then, using lessons learned, Scaled/Northrup Grumman could develop a reusable first stage to bring the system to Atlas V/Falcon 9 performance levels.

I very much doubt Stratolaunch has any plans to develop their own rocket. 

After all, why would SpaceX have involved themselves in this if they believed Stratolaunch's  eventual plan was to build their own rocket and compete directly with SpaceX?  SpaceX is so concerned with keeping their developments secret that they rarely even file patents.   They'd be hard pressed to keep secrets from a partner with such easy access to their product.

I have two possible answers.  The first is that SpaceX may have contractual assurances that no such competition will occur.  At a minimum, they probably have contractual assurances against any copying of SpaceX intellectual property.

It's also possible that SpaceX is simply confident enough in their technology that they don't believe Stratolaunch could develop a competitive rocket in any reasonable timeline.  Perhaps thinking that even if Stratolaunch eventually plans to build a rocket, it's better to take Stratolaunch's money today and use it to develop better and better rockets.  SpaceX would effectively be using Paul Allen's money to move the goal posts further and further away from Stratolaunch and the rest of SpaceX's competition.  This fact is certainly not lost on Stratolaunch.

The other reason I don't believe Stratolaunch will develop their own rocket is complexity.  As difficult and as complex it will be to develop the Stratolaunch carrier aircraft, developing an orbital rocket is harder still.  Much, harder. 

You can screw up all sorts of things while developing an aircraft, many if not most of the problems can be worked out in testing.  With orbital rockets, such test are far more limited and comprehensive testing is impossible.  Even a big problem in a prototype aircraft rarely results in a loss of vehicle, while the smallest problem with an orbital rocket can certainly result in loss of vehicle. 

There's yet another reason I don't believe Stratolaunch will develop their own rocket.  This is based on the fact that Stratolaunch won't be doing any of their own integration, they've chosen to sub it out to Dynetics. If Stratolaunch were planning to build their own rockets, I suspect they would have kept integration in house.

[quanthasaquality]

Airplane launch gives the rocket a higher starting speed and altitude. So do reusable (flyback?) booster rockets. Are airplane launch systems (like Stratolaunch ) worth the extra cost over bigger, reusable boosters?

[Jim]

There's been a lot of comment bemoaning how few airports at which this bird could land.  In truth, the surprising fact is how many airports in the US this bird could use for cargo operations.

There are a surprising number of 2 mile long runways in the US.  Many of them are former SAC bases.  There are also a large number of civilian airports with runways designed for dual civilian / military use.   In addition, military airports can and have been used for civilian operations.  Further, some significant proportion of this oversize cargo work may in fact be for the military.

Surprising fact is that you are wrong.  The bemoaning is justified.
length is not the only constraining factor.  The wing span and turning radius are more constraining.  Anyways, 2 miles is too small for this aircraft, it needs 12k not 10k feet.
What oversize cargo work  for the military?  The military designs to existing capabilities.

[sanman]

Would it need just as much runway length to land on, as to take off from?

If not, then could the JATO/RATO approach make it work with 2-mile runways?

[sanman]

Also - can anyone guess at what the velocity of the aircraft would be, when releasing the rocket? What initial velocity would that rocket have, as it ignites its engines? (Sorry if the answer was already posted, because I didn't see it anywhere.)

[go4mars]

It makes me suspect they have a truly massive cargo module in the works.  Something that can quickly attach to the same hard point as the rocket and fill most of the void between the dual hulls.  A container of that scale would almost certainly carry more volume than any air cargo system currently in use.

length is not the only constraining factor.  The wing span and turning radius are more constraining.  Anyways, 2 miles is too small for this aircraft, it needs 12k not 10k feet.
What oversize cargo work  for the military?  The military designs to existing capabilities.

Oil and gas, and mining sectors will certainly have interested customers (air-drops of equipment and rigs into remote locations).  Maybe forest fire fighting too if they make a water module.  I wouldn't be surprised if there is some sort of deal with SpaceX related to flying rocket stages around too.   I agree with Dalon that a cargo module is likely a part of this.  Multi-billionaires usually have back-up plans and synergies in mind when tossing hundreds of Megabucks into projects. 

[Dalon]

Would it need just as much runway length to land on, as to take off from?

A combination of thrust reversers and high drag aero surfaces could certainly allow for significantly shorter landings than takeoffs.  As yet, we don't have enough information to determine whether this is part of the aircraft's design.

If not, then could the JATO/RATO approach make it work with 2-mile runways?

The aircraft would have to be designed from inception to accommodate JATO, given that this is a clean sheet aircraft, it is a possibility. 

Personally, I don't think there's enough benefit in JATO to justify the cost and complexity.  This is already a formidable design challenge.

I do wonder at the lack of any mention of mid-air refueling.  While JATO could give some modest benefit, mid-air refueling could result in massive benefits.  Payload weight would increase dramatically.  I'm not even considering the wild ideas of fueling the rocket in-flight.  Simply launching the aircraft with minimum fuel then topping it off in flight should drastically increase the payload to orbit.  If both the aircraft and rocket could be fueled in-flight, payload would rise yet again.

For cargo use, mid-air refueling could work to reduce runway takeoff length.  If Stratolaunch is going to mix any other complex technology into this aircraft, I strongly suspect it will be mid-air refueling.

[Dalon]

[Anyways, 2 miles is too small for this aircraft, it needs 12k not 10k feet.
What oversize cargo work  for the military?  The military designs to existing capabilities.

There are a surprising number of 12,500 ft runways in the US.

The list below includes roughly 30 in the US, each over 13,000 feet.  There are quite a number not on this list that meet or exceed  Stratolaunch's 12,500 requirement.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_longest_runways

[HappyMartian]

....

There are a surprising number of 12,500 ft runways in the US.

The list below includes roughly 30 in the US, each over 13,000 feet.  There are quite a number not on this list that meet or exceed  Stratolaunch's 12,500 requirement.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_longest_runways

Wow! What a list! Who knows, maybe some other airports would be willing to increase the length of one of their runaways. Lots of farsighted nations want to be a high tech space power. Add a few thousand feet to an existing long runway, increase the runway's turning area, add a specialized preparation area and some propellant storage tanks and presto, your nation or company has the basics needed to be a 'space player'. It won't happen tomorrow, but maybe it could begin to happen around 2018.


Stratolaunch Aims to Break Affordability Barrier   Dec 13, 2011  By Michael Mecham
"Former NASA Administrator Michael Griffin, a Stratolaunch board member, says the emphasis initially will be on customers to use Stratolaunch as a self-contained system, whether for manned or unmanned flights." From: 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


"'We believe this technology has the potential to someday make spaceflight routine by removing many of the constraints associated with ground launched rockets,' Griffin said. 'Our system will also provide the flexibility to launch from a large variety of locations.'"
From: http://www.stratolaunch.com/news.html


"'Any orbit. Any time' is the new company’s slogan."
From: Space Company Stratolaunch To Blast Rockets From Huge New Aircraft  At: http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/space/rockets/new-space-company-stratolaunch-will-launch-orbital-rockets-from-twin-747s-6615736


"I'm reminded of what Wernher Von Braun replied when someone asked him,'What's the hardest thing about going to the moon?' And Von Braun said, 'The will to do it.'" Paul G. Allen, from book Idea Man
From: http://www.stratolaunch.com/presskit.html


Stratolaunch also already has an up-to-date Wikipedia article that references "Bergin, Chris (2011-12-13). 'Stratolaunch introduce Rutan designed air-launched system for Falcon rockets'"
From: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stratolaunch_Systems


Yep. Pretty nifty. Lots of countries could eventually gain routine access to LEO. Stratolaunch could turn out to be better than ice cream on apple pie!


Cheers!

Edited.

[Dalon]

Yep. Pretty nifty. Lots of countries could eventually gain routine access to LEO. Stratolaunch could turn out to be better than ice cream on apple pie!


Cheers!

Edited.

I'm not sure if you're a strawman's strawman, or a cynic's cynic.

Based on that post, perhaps both.

[HappyMartian]

Yep. Pretty nifty. Lots of countries could eventually gain routine access to LEO. Stratolaunch could turn out to be better than ice cream on apple pie!


Cheers!

Edited.

I'm not sure if you're a strawman's strawman, or a cynic's cynic.

Based on that post, perhaps both.

Well, I'm sorry if I confused you or anyone else.

I am a cynic sometimes, but I do love Stratolaunch because, besides the benefits I and many others noted above, it could also help to enable a commercial LEO dawn-dusk Sun synchronous orbit zero boil off hydrolox argon propellant depot which could enable efficient solar powered zero boil off hydrolox argon tankers and cargo spacecraft traveling from LEO to L1, L2, and Lunar orbits and thus enable efficient and affordable international Orion SLS missions to the Moon.

The Moon will eventually become a source of propellant for missions to everywhere in the Solar System.

"'Any orbit. Any time' is the new company’s slogan."
From: Space Company Stratolaunch To Blast Rockets From Huge New Aircraft  At: http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/space/rockets/new-space-company-stratolaunch-will-launch-orbital-rockets-from-twin-747s-6615736

The widely accepted and positive ongoing example provided by the International Space Station, and other NASA agreements with a large diversity of countries, seems to be the most politically wise and sustainable model for our international space exploration efforts of the Moon, asteroids, and Mars.

However, a commercial propellant depot in a LEO dawn-dusk Sun synchronous orbit would be both valuable to our planet's international space exploration efforts and lovely to see in the dawn or dusk sky. Stratolaunch could indeed turn out to be better than ice cream on a piece of apple pie! And trust me, I do love ice cream on a piece of apple pie!

Cheers!