Stratolaunch: General Company and Development Updates and Discussions

[RobLynn]

If Skylon is a workable concept then a similar all-rocket vehicle could be built for Stratolaunch minus the Air breathing engines - use vacuum optimised SSME instead.

Wings on Skylon-like LV would support substantial weight and with another couple of 747 engines should allow a slightly heavier launch vehicle; eg maybe 300tonnes GTOW.  Mass ratio to orbit is about 6.5ish so should still get pretty substantial payload.

[Carreidas 160]

If Skylon is a workable concept then a similar all-rocket vehicle could be built for Stratolaunch minus the Air breathing engines - use vacuum optimised SSME instead.

Wings on Skylon-like LV would support substantial weight and with another couple of 747 engines should allow a slightly heavier launch vehicle; eg maybe 300tonnes GTOW.  Mass ratio to orbit is about 6.5ish so should still get pretty substantial payload.

Dunno, at 30kft there's still a lot of atmosphere to plough through before switching to on-board LOX is necessary, so why not keep the air-breathing rockets?

I do like the thought of air-dropping a Skylon derivative, IF it's possible to scale it down. Saves a lot of LOX/LH2 between 0 and 30kft and mitigates some nasty takeoff issues (such as 150m/s takeoff speed)

[Jim]

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. 

no, big parachutes don't exist.  They don't use the existing capability now, why would they use this.  The impact loads would be too great for any hardware.

No, not firefighting, the vehicle is too big and not manuverable.  And where is it going to stage from?

No, not rocket stages.  The rocket for this aircraft is going to be structurally different from F9.  And again, where is it going to stage from?

[mmeijeri]

The rocket for this aircraft is going to be structurally different from F9.

Would it be more structurally similar to a future reusable F9 first stage, or just different in a different way?

[Jim]

[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

Many in the US are not usable such as JFK

[Jim]

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.

No, there still is ITAR

[Rocket Science]

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!

I already posted that PM link. If you read the article and saw the video, you will see/hear/read Griffin’s “wishy washy” comments about the concept.  “I don’t know that its a better way….” Why that person is on that team apart from his connections is beyond me….

[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.

No, there still is ITAR

Eventually Jim, eventually...

Cheers!

[Jim]

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.

No, there still is ITAR

Eventually Jim, eventually...

Cheers!

Nope, not in your lifetime, ITAR will always be around.  The issues now days is components and satellites.  This is an integrated system that does have military applications.  It is not going to be sold to anyone.

[go4mars]

no, big parachutes don't exist.  They don't use the existing capability now, why would they use this.  The impact loads would be too great for any hardware.

I was unaware of the big parachute issue.  As to why it isn't done now, part of the reason is that a sufficiently large rig is too large for current capabilities.  As to the impact loads; the way rigs are overbuilt, I would find that assessment surprising, but you might be right.  Looking back, the only schemes I've heard discussed in O&G board rooms are neutral buoyancy airships much larger than anything available. 

At second glance, I think even if 3/4 of the 250 ton capability was for the rig components, and 50 tons was parachutes and an aerodynamic case, and if the rig would survive landing, that still is not enough capacity for most arctic applications. 

No, not firefighting, the vehicle is too big and not manuverable.  And where is it going to stage from?

Depending on topography, manueverable might not be a big deal.  Where to stage it from?  Somewhere with a long runway within range of the fire.  Dropping 250 tons of water on a forest fire would be a useful capability, and could save money vs. zillions of little trips by smaller aircraft.  Also, if it had a pontoon version (getting less likely I know) then any long lake might work.   

No, not rocket stages.  The rocket for this aircraft is going to be structurally different from F9.  And again, where is it going to stage from?

A sling or aerocase that can hold individual empty F9 stages.  Where would it stage from?  LAX and somewhere near McGregor, and somewhere near its launch pad.  It takes 2 weeks to drive these stages from Hawthorne to the Cape IIRC.  It might become beneficial to make that a 1-3 day process instead.   I'm not saying it certainly is the case.  But instead of stratolauncher aircraft spending most of its time just waiting around for the next F5 launch, it might as well do something useful in-between.  Also, driving stages down a bumpy interstate for 2 weeks through all kinds of traffic and weather conditions may be higher risk than flying stages around. 

[Jim]

[go4mars]

There are also car crashes, rocket failures, airplane crashes, and people have walked into things.   Exceptions rather than the rule.  But the risk of building a new giant parachute system might turn off individual oil execs.  If the capability was there, and had been demonstrated to work, impact forces had been measured, I think it would get used for that purpose.   

Being able to drop 490000 pounds opens up new possibilities is all. 

[sammie]

Using the stratolauncher aircraft for anything other then launching rockets is like a solution looking for a problem. The heavy lift market is rather small, and the even the An-225 is often too large for regular airports. The FAA refused to certify the Evergreen 747 firebomber for a long time, although it seems to flying nowadays.

Most of the time moving large parts can be done cheaper by road or barge. Only when time is really important is stuff shipped by oversize cargo plane. Anyway, blimps will probably do most of the heavy lifting in 10 15 years, that will really change things...

(edit, firebomber does fly nowadays)

[go4mars]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evergreen_747_Supertanker

If 747 can be used to fight forest fires, I don't see why this couldn't.

[go4mars]

The FAA refused to certify the Evergreen 747 firebomber,

 "issue that impacted usage by the Forest Service was the USFS requirement for using fire retardant rather than water. When Evergreen attempted to convert the system from water dispensing to retardant, they encountered objections from the FAA. The FAA's issue related to the much greater density of fire retardant and the corresponding increased stress on the airframe thus delaying the FAA certification. "

On 5 December 2010, the Supertanker was deployed to Israel for fighting Mount Carmel forest fire. This undertaking goes side by side with crew and utilities donated by other international fire agencies.[11] On 9 June 2011, the Supertanker was also deployed to fight the Wallow Fire in Arizona

"Currently the first tanker in North America is under a CWN (call when needed) contract with Cal Fire and is stationed at McClellan Field outside of Sacramento, California.[9]"

Anyway, blimps will probably do most of the heavy lifting in 10 15 years, that will really change things...

I hope you're right, but I'm sure that's been said 10 or 15 years ago too. 

[Jim]

1,  There are also car crashes, rocket failures, airplane crashes, and people have walked into things.   exceptions rather than the rule.  But the risk of building a new giant parachute system might turn off individual oil execs.  If the capability was there, and had been demonstrated to work, impact forces had been measured, I think it would get used for that purpose.   

2.  Being able to drop 490000 pounds opens a new possibilities is all. 

1.  No look past the crashes and at the impact of a normal drop.  It is huge shock. (the ones were the cargo tipped over).   Shuttle SRB's hit at 60mph

2.  Huh? Get real.  No it doesn't.  We don't even parachute the max capacities of existing planes <100klbs.

geesh, do you believe every idea is going to work?  You have trouble seeing past the hype and focusing on reality.

[go4mars]

1.  No, look at the impact of a normal drop.  It is shock.

Have you ever walked around on an oil rig?  They aren't built dainty or minimalist.  Everything is way overbuilt.  The main reason for the excess mass is to deal with gas kicks and to control blowouts if things go wrong.  They are meant to get smacked.  Liability being what it is, they are WAAAAY overbuilt. 

We don't even parachute the max capacities of existing planes.

You don't have any existing capability big enough for dropping oil rig components. 

geesh, do you believe every idea is going to work?

I'm more of an innocent until proven guilty kind of guy.  What would you have said about the odds of an F5 launch aircraft a year or two ago? 

[Jim]

Depending on topography, manueverable might not be a big deal.  Where to stage it from?  Somewhere with a long runway within range of the fire.  Dropping 250 tons of water on a forest fire would be a useful capability, and could save money vs. zillions of little trips by smaller aircraft.  Also, if it had a pontoon version (getting less likely I know) then any long lake might work.   

huh? Topography is the reason they are use.  On mountain, valley, ravines, canyons, where land vehicle can't go.  This is not areas for vehicle like Strato.  There are few runways where it can operate and .

Again, get in the real world

[Jim]

What would you have said about the odds of an F5 launch aircraft a year or two ago? 

Still hasn't happened.  And when it does, it still doesn't mean it is economically viable.

[Jim]

Have you ever walked around on an oil rig?  They aren't built dainty or minimalist.  Everything is way overbuilt.  The main reason for the excess mass is to deal with gas kicks and to control blowouts if things go wrong.  They are meant to get smacked.  Liability being what it is, they are WAAAAY overbuilt. 

Not enough to survive a parachute drop.   Nor are they designed to be suspended.