Stratolaunch: General Company and Development Updates and Discussions

[Jim]

The exact details of how it would be done are a red herring.  But I think it's a valid point that it could technically be done in some form that is larger than SOFIA, and there might be some improvements in design and/or cost drawn from SOFIA.  I'm happy to leave it at that. 

Just as valid is that it couldn't be done technically

[Robotbeat]

...
However, if the point of the SOFIA discussion is to practice typing, then that's fine.
...

JohnFornaro wins.

[JohnFornaro]

Thanks.  Let's go out and have a bryozoan sometime.

[JohnFornaro]

The most salient objection to this scheme is why isn't the angel investor bringing the inventor's proven, sub-scale RLV scheme to the proper and needed scale? [and capability, I add.]

Are you talking about something Rutan came up with?  ...  Do you mean a bigger spaceship2?

Rutan.  SS3?  A real RLV?  At long last?  Mr. Allen is being totally hoodwinked by his advisors.  If I said that I was going to start launching rockets sideways, what do you think the typical reaction around here would be?  WWJS?

I'm going out on a limb when I say all that, I realize.  And by "limb", I mean ... well, this:

http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=27381.msg834088#msg834088

[Comga]

Pardon me, but I can't find where this article was linked. 

While I am usually adverse to conspiracy theories, this makes more sense than Stratolaunch for regular satellites.  Surprisingly, a friend, who moves in the high levels of American space programs and knows several of the people involved with Stratolaunch, agrees.

[Rocket Science]

This makes more sense to me…

http://up-ship.com/blog/?p=11633

[RocketmanUS]

Pardon me, but I can't find where this article was linked. 

While I am usually adverse to conspiracy theories, this makes more sense than Stratolaunch for regular satellites.  Surprisingly, a friend, who moves in the high levels of American space programs and knows several of the people involved with Stratolaunch, agrees.

Worth reading, not a conspiracy theory, well thought out and easy to read. Not saying it will or won't be. It is an interesting idea. But once a X-37 is in orbit can't it be tracked?

Is it faster to get a payload launch this way compared to using a launch pad? 

[RocketmanUS]

This makes more sense to me…

http://up-ship.com/blog/?p=11633

From the FAA ( 2003 PDF )
http://www.faa.gov/library/reports/commercial_space/dev_concepts/media/newtech03_final.pdf

So maybe the X-37 would use the Stratolaunch.

[HMXHMX]

This makes more sense to me…

http://up-ship.com/blog/?p=11633

Top launch is higher risk for any number of reasons. It is something to be avoided if there is a belly launch, towed or twin-boom configuration option.

[Danderman]

If something like an X-37 were the payload for Stratolaunch, it might be possible to inject the payload into a suborbital trajectory, and use the payload's own engine to attain the final orbit. In that case, the upper stage would never reach orbit, and so would theoretically be easier to recover.

[Rocket Science]

This makes more sense to me…

http://up-ship.com/blog/?p=11633

Top launch is higher risk for any number of reasons. It is something to be avoided if there is a belly launch, towed or twin-boom configuration option.

Yes, I understand the preferred belly drop method is more acceptable for risk of re-contact. I see this as more sense if this was just for a rapid deployment military-spy mission for the X-37 and easier to conceal.  In a military context a higher risk is acceptable compared to civilian use… Now if cost is no object then you can go to a dedicated aircraft such as Stratolaunch.

Robert

[jimoutofthebox]

If something like an X-37 were the payload for Stratolaunch, it might be possible to inject the payload into a suborbital trajectory, and use the payload's own engine to attain the final orbit. In that case, the upper stage would never reach orbit, and so would theoretically be easier to recover.

I posted the following in a different thread.

There is a significant cost savings to be had from launching a booster from an aircraft.  For example Saturn V used almost 1/3rd of its launch weight in RP and LOX just to get to Mach 1.  I think air launch has the potential to dramatically reduce the cost of putting people in orbit.  Instead of the modified 747s proposed I would use a modified C5 aircraft with the floor removed so that the booster could be carried internally.  With a good redesign the C5 could probably carry 350,000 lbs.   
I would then create a booster based on a scaled up X-37.  The booster would consist of two parts the orbiter section would consist of an airframe with a LOX tank, crew compartment, and a pair of J2 engines as well as a pair of small engines for orbital insertion and reentry.  The orbiter would return for reuse.  The other section would be mounted to the nose of the main assembly and would consist of the LH fuel tank.  The LH fuel tank would also have solid rocket motors that would pull the tank away from the orbiter once the fuel was exhausted.  The tank would then burn up.  The small engines would place the orbiter in orbit just as was done with the shuttle.
There are several advantages to this proposal.  The passengers would not have to enter the orbiter until the aircraft got to altitude so in an emergency the booster could be jettisoned from the aircraft without endangering the passengers.  A lot of money could be saved because all the expensive stuff could be reused.
I estimate that the system outlined above would weigh 350,000 lbs when fully fuelled with a 90% fuel fraction.  It could carry 7 people to orbit or a robot version could carry a payload of 5,000lbs to orbit.

[Comga]

Launching the X-37 on Stratolaunch was discussed over in the X37B thread.

Stratolaunch is supposed to have a 13 mton payload and X37 is about 11 mton, so it sounds physically possible.

Anyone have any opinion on horizontal airlaunch of X37 without a fairing?   DreamChaser is shown launching on an Atlas without a fairing, but X37 used them.  There are issues with crosswinds and things, I think.  Wouldn't these be mitigated by flying into the wind at altitude?

[HMXHMX]

This makes more sense to me…

http://up-ship.com/blog/?p=11633

Top launch is higher risk for any number of reasons. It is something to be avoided if there is a belly launch, towed or twin-boom configuration option.

Yes, I understand the preferred belly drop method is more acceptable for risk of re-contact. I see this as more sense if this was just for a rapid deployment military-spy mission for the X-37 and easier to conceal.  In a military context a higher risk is acceptable compared to civilian use… Now if cost is no object then you can go to a dedicated aircraft such as Stratolaunch.

Robert

I'd beg to differ about risk.  At AirLaunch we had to mitigate risk for the USAF C-17 on the order of 10 to the minus 10th, a full order of magnitude higher than the FAA would require for commercial air transport.  I'll take an FAA Restricted certification permit any day.

And the problem isn't risk of recontact.  For the configuration shown, the mated a/c Cg is quite high (there's 350-400K lbm of mass up there), the drag is high, there are always issues with tail flutter and you've got lots of dangerous propellants on top of the a/c.  That's not to say it won't work, but I believe there are better alternatives.

[HMXHMX]

Launching the X-37 on Stratolaunch was discussed over in the X37B thread.

Stratolaunch is supposed to have a 13 mton payload and X37 is about 11 mton, so it sounds physically possible.

Anyone have any opinion on horizontal airlaunch of X37 without a fairing?   DreamChaser is shown launching on an Atlas without a fairing, but X37 used them.  There are issues with crosswinds and things, I think.  Wouldn't these be mitigated by flying into the wind at altitude?

13,500 lbm for the Stratolaunch system and 7-12K lbm for X-37, depending on propellant loadout.

And the wind is variable.  A winged body sees AoA-generated forces with any crosswind.  Flying unshrouded is a bad idea in general though it can be made to work with enough control authority.  I think it is fairly obvious that the large diameter fairing if meant for X-37.  It is the only payload in the world that requires both low mass and a 5M fairing.  That's a dead giveaway.

[Rocket Science]

This makes more sense to me…

http://up-ship.com/blog/?p=11633

Top launch is higher risk for any number of reasons. It is something to be avoided if there is a belly launch, towed or twin-boom configuration option.

Yes, I understand the preferred belly drop method is more acceptable for risk of re-contact. I see this as more sense if this was just for a rapid deployment military-spy mission for the X-37 and easier to conceal.  In a military context a higher risk is acceptable compared to civilian use… Now if cost is no object then you can go to a dedicated aircraft such as Stratolaunch.

Robert

I'd beg to differ about risk.  At AirLaunch we had to mitigate risk for the USAF C-17 on the order of 10 to the minus 10th, a full order of magnitude higher than the FAA would require for commercial air transport.  I'll take an FAA Restricted certification permit any day.

And the problem isn't risk of recontact.  For the configuration shown, the mated a/c Cg is quite high (there's 350-400K lbm of mass up there), the drag is high, there are always issues with tail flutter and you've got lots of dangerous propellants on top of the a/c.  That's not to say it won't work, but I believe there are better alternatives.

Hi Gary,
Yes, I totally agree about the high Cg, tail flutter as well as loss of stability due to aero blanking off of the empennage. I only put this forward as to what Boeing has considered with respect to air launch. I’m still of the belief that your proven methodology of being internally carried and launch procedure trumps this Boeing proposal in many respects including concealment from prying eyes. I can see this working great using your launch method from a C-17 or a C-5, if no clearance issues exist for the wings of the X-37 and a booster with swing wings and a folding vertical stabilizer if desired. Like you said there are better alternatives… I would add, including use of existing carrier aircraft and not having to wait for Statolaunch or spend the funds to build it. It is still hard to argue with a deliberately designed and dedicated aircraft where one would have fewer constraints…
Perhaps Boeing should consider your approach or perhaps they already have for the X-37?
I wish you continued success for 2012!

Regards
Robert

[HMXHMX]

This makes more sense to me…

http://up-ship.com/blog/?p=11633

Top launch is higher risk for any number of reasons. It is something to be avoided if there is a belly launch, towed or twin-boom configuration option.

Yes, I understand the preferred belly drop method is more acceptable for risk of re-contact. I see this as more sense if this was just for a rapid deployment military-spy mission for the X-37 and easier to conceal.  In a military context a higher risk is acceptable compared to civilian use… Now if cost is no object then you can go to a dedicated aircraft such as Stratolaunch.

Robert

I'd beg to differ about risk.  At AirLaunch we had to mitigate risk for the USAF C-17 on the order of 10 to the minus 10th, a full order of magnitude higher than the FAA would require for commercial air transport.  I'll take an FAA Restricted certification permit any day.

And the problem isn't risk of recontact.  For the configuration shown, the mated a/c Cg is quite high (there's 350-400K lbm of mass up there), the drag is high, there are always issues with tail flutter and you've got lots of dangerous propellants on top of the a/c.  That's not to say it won't work, but I believe there are better alternatives.

Hi Gary,
Yes, I totally agree about the high Cg, tail flutter as well as loss of stability due to aero blanking off of the empennage. I only put this forward as to what Boeing has considered with respect to air launch. I’m still of the belief that your proven methodology of being internally carried and launch procedure trumps this Boeing proposal in many respects including concealment from prying eyes. I can see this working great using your launch method from a C-17 or a C-5, if no clearance issues exist for the wings of the X-37 and a booster with swing wings and a folding vertical stabilizer if desired. Like you said there are better alternatives… I would add, including use of existing carrier aircraft and not having to wait for Statolaunch or spend the funds to build it. It is still hard to argue with a deliberately designed and dedicated aircraft where one would have fewer constraints…
Perhaps Boeing should consider your approach or perhaps they already have for the X-37?
I wish you continued success for 2012!

Regards
Robert

Oh, I believe there is a place for an alternative existing-aircraft approach in place of the M351 a/c.  I can think of at least two different ways to accomplish the Stratolaunch payload goal (whatever it may turn out to be) without building the new a/c.  But people like their toys.

[jimoutofthebox]

Launching the X-37 on Stratolaunch was discussed over in the X37B thread.

Stratolaunch is supposed to have a 13 mton payload and X37 is about 11 mton, so it sounds physically possible.

Anyone have any opinion on horizontal airlaunch of X37 without a fairing?   DreamChaser is shown launching on an Atlas without a fairing, but X37 used them.  There are issues with crosswinds and things, I think.  Wouldn't these be mitigated by flying into the wind at altitude?

This is one reason I think my idea might work better.  If you put the throw away LH tank ahead of the orbitor at launch the aero surfaces would be behind the CG and close to the engines just as any other finned rocket. 

[kevin-rf]

What LH tank? and besides when does placing LH forward help the CG issue? LOX tank yes, but LH???

[Robotbeat]

In case anyone is confused, X-37b is ~11,000 lbm, NOT 11 metric tons. It's about 5 metric tons. (See HMXHMX's post above)