Stratolaunch: General Company and Development Updates and Discussions

[Jim]

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

So what does that have to do with anything?  There is no airdrop capability for 100klbs.  No one is going to jump to 5 times that

[Jim]

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. 

Sling?  you must be joking.  Musk could use the C-5 or AN-124 if he want to fly the F9.  They never had to drive it.

LAX can't be used, too short.

[go4mars]

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

Having grown up in Alberta, and worked in silvaculture as a teenager, I think it's likely that I have a lot more real world experience and knowledge with respect to fighting forest fires than you.  Did you know that sometimes there are places in a forest that you can't drive to because there are trees in the way?  There only needs to be one long runway near an important national park to make this idea possible.  One of the big advantages of the 747 fire-fighter is its pressurized system and overwhelming volume allows for night-time drops from higher up.  The 747 unloads 20000 gallons in controlled spray.  Stratolauncher could almost double that capacity.  It likely won't happen.  Just saying it's a possibility for future use. 

Here's the main advantage of this in fire fighting vs. 747:

747 is a dedicated aircraft.  Stratolauncher can moonlight as a firefighter if it has a module that can clip in to the attachment point. 

Fire fighting is not the main point here. 

What I am trying to say, is that stratolauncher could have other uses that just launching F5 (once it exists).  You seem to disagree with that. 

[Jim]

There only needs to be one long runway near an important national park to make this idea possible.   

there are none

[Jim]

What I am trying to say, is that stratolauncher could have other uses that just launching F5 (once it exists).  You seem to disagree with that. 

yep, it is a point solution.

[go4mars]

What I am trying to say, is that stratolauncher could have other uses that just launching F5 (once it exists).  You seem to disagree with that. 

yep, it is a point solution.

Well at least we've cleared that up. 

So you don't think the military would consider a bigger MOP once this thing exists.

[go4mars]

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.

Whether something will happen or will work does not always correlate with economic viability.   But you are well aware of that. 

[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.

Whether something will happen or will work does not always correlate with economic viability.   But you are well aware of that. 

Perceived economic viability is the whole reason that it exists.

Anyways, the Stratolaunch won't have timefight fires, deliver drilling rigs or transport large containers.  If it does, it means it failed its primary task.

[Jim]

So you don't think the military would consider a bigger MOP once this thing exists.

No,  It already has large aircraft (C-5, 747, C-17) that could deliver larger ones and but they don't.

This is not a battlefield aircraft, it will be a sitting duck

[mmeijeri]

Theoretically, could the carrier be used to transport SLS stages?

[go4mars]

If it does, it means it failed its primary task.

I don't understand how you conclude that. 
Unless they are going to be launching F5's with stunning frequency, then there will be times between launches where it could be used for other purposes.  There may also be more than one created.  Why can't multi-purpose be a definition of success? 

[Jim]

Unless they are going to be launching F5's with stunning frequency,

Then why build it? 

[go4mars]

yep, it is a point solution.

Potential for passenger travel along very limited routes?  Perhaps with a smaller craft dropping off sooner? 

[Jim]

There may also be more than one created. 

Where has that been said? 

I am through with this.  You have no objectivity.

[go4mars]

Then why build it? 

Exactly.  They have said they will be doing expendible rockets with it.  There isn't enough demand for throwing tens of millions away every day for getting smallish things to LEO.  So unless they are actually thinking of a reusable F5, then they will need other income sources to make this more than just a rich mans hobby (specifically Paul Allen).  And even if it is just a rich mans hobby, it is nice when hobbies can at least subsidize themselves somehow.   

[Jim]

yep, it is a point solution.

Potential for passenger travel along very limited routes?  Perhaps with a smaller craft dropping off sooner? 

No, there is still debate whether the A380 is viable.  Passenger design has many more constraints. 
Drop off aircraft is inane, it buys you nothing. 

It keeps getting more inane and ludicrous.

The way to approach this is to see ways you don't need a specialized aircraft

[mmeijeri]

There isn't enough demand for throwing tens of millions away every day for getting smallish things to LEO.

They've essentially said they're hoping to make this cheap enough to launch large numbers of paying customers into space and bring them back safely.

[Jim]

Then why build it? 

Exactly.  They have said they will be doing expendible rockets with it.  There isn't enough demand for throwing tens of millions away every day for getting smallish things to LEO.  So unless they are actually thinking of a reusable F5, then they will need other income sources to make this more than just a rich mans hobby (specifically Paul Allen).  And even if it is just a rich mans hobby, it is nice when hobbies can at least subsidize themselves somehow.   

No, they are not thinking of other sources of income to support this concept.   this is exists because they think they can make money.  Other uses have not entered the picture.

[go4mars]

They've essentially said they're hoping to make this cheap enough to launch large numbers of paying customers into space and bring them back safely.

"Cheap enough" implies F5 reusability imo. 

[neilh]

I'm pretty sure that when not being used for launches, the Stratolaunch carrier will be pretty busy rescuing spice harvesters from incoming sandworms.