Stratolaunch: General Company and Development Updates and Discussions

[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?

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. 

Why are you talking about reengineering Stratolaunch and "my idea might work better"?  These are professionals, and no back-of the-envelope scratching will show why their choices are less than optimal, particularly when we are missing lots of information.  This may include the specific purpose of and ultimate market for Stratolaunch.

I try to learn here.  That's why I asked the very experienced people about the aerodynamics of putting the X37 unshrouded on the front of the Stratolaunch F-5.  This was to compare it to the shrouded X38 and the planned unshrouded DreamChaser on the vertically launched Atlas V.

And yes, Robotbeat, I put in the wrong units, making for an error of 2.2X.

[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. 

Why are you talking about reengineering Stratolaunch and "my idea might work better"?  These are professionals, and no back-of the-envelope scratching will show why their choices are less than optimal, particularly when we are missing lots of information.  This may include the specific purpose of and ultimate market for Stratolaunch.

I try to learn here.  That's why I asked the very experienced people about the aerodynamics of putting the X37 unshrouded on the front of the Stratolaunch F-5.  This was to compare it to the shrouded X38 and the planned unshrouded DreamChaser on the vertically launched Atlas V.

And yes, Robotbeat, I put in the wrong units, making for an error of 2.2X.

If you had read my earlier post you would see that I had thoroughly thought out the prospects of stratolaunch.  The point I was trying to make was that stratolaunch could have some advantages that aren’t available with ground base launchers.  One of the advantages is you could put a winged vehicle like the x-37 behind the fuel tank with the main engines attached instead of in front of the fuel tanks.  I’m here to learn as well and since my tax dollars will support whatever is developed I believe that we all have the responsibility to avoid another space shuttle.

[Jim]

I believe that we all have the responsibility to avoid another space shuttle.

Then stay away from airlaunch

[yg1968]

I believe that we all have the responsibility to avoid another space shuttle.

Then stay away from airlaunch

What makes you think that Air Launch is unsafe?

[Jorge]

I believe that we all have the responsibility to avoid another space shuttle.

Then stay away from airlaunch

What makes you think that Air Launch is unsafe?

What makes you think Jim's primary objection to the space shuttle was safety?

[yg1968]

I believe that we all have the responsibility to avoid another space shuttle.

Then stay away from airlaunch

What makes you think that Air Launch is unsafe?

What makes you think Jim's primary objection to the space shuttle was safety?

I wasn't sure if it was cost or safety. But you are right, it may have been cost.

[RanulfC]

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. 

Why are you talking about reengineering Stratolaunch and "my idea might work better"?  These are professionals, and no back-of the-envelope scratching will show why their choices are less than optimal, particularly when we are missing lots of information.  This may include the specific purpose of and ultimate market for Stratolaunch.

I try to learn here.  That's why I asked the very experienced people about the aerodynamics of putting the X37 unshrouded on the front of the Stratolaunch F-5.  This was to compare it to the shrouded X38 and the planned unshrouded DreamChaser on the vertically launched Atlas V.

And yes, Robotbeat, I put in the wrong units, making for an error of 2.2X.

If you had read my earlier post you would see that I had thoroughly thought out the prospects of stratolaunch.  The point I was trying to make was that stratolaunch could have some advantages that aren’t available with ground base launchers.  One of the advantages is you could put a winged vehicle like the x-37 behind the fuel tank with the main engines attached instead of in front of the fuel tanks.  I’m here to learn as well and since my tax dollars will support whatever is developed I believe that we all have the responsibility to avoid another space shuttle.

This sounds like a "re-do" of the "SwiftLaunch" LV concept only sans-pallet system:
(Page-11 this study)
http://mae.ucdavis.edu/faculty/sarigul/aiaa2001-4619.pdf

There are advantages and disadvantages to internal carry of an LV, the biggest being the "lack" of usable aircraft considering who owns the majority of them and thier current tasking assignments.

What do you consider as the "failures" of the Shuttle design that AirLaunch would "fix?"

Randy

[RanulfC]

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.

Not sure if you want to go into it here Gary but, assuming a similar launch system to the L-and-T baselined for nominal AirLaunch how would a winged LV effect the system compared to the more "normal" type LVs envisioned?

Randy

[HMXHMX]

A minor pedantic note:  "AirLaunch" or "AirLaunch LLC" is the name of one of my companies, still operating.  If someone wants to refer to it, that's the spelling.  If you want to talk about "air-launching", air-launch," etc., please don't make it one run together word or capitalize unless you intend to talk about the company.  It confuses the poor search engines.

Just for the record, AirLaunch LLC has nothing to do with Stratolaunch Systems.

[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.

Not sure if you want to go into it here Gary but, assuming a similar launch system to the L-and-T baselined for nominal AirLaunch how would a winged LV effect the system compared to the more "normal" type LVs envisioned?

Randy

That's too long a discussion for me to get into.  Suffice to say that in our extensive analysis and testing effort, AirLaunch LLC found the use of the lanyard to point the launch vehicle properly was easy and didn't put large loads into the LV, even flying at near 90 deg AoA.  For expendable, unwinged vehicles it is the way to go, as far as we are concerned.

If one plans a winged reusable, it would not be particularly suitable.

[RanulfC]

That's too long a discussion for me to get into.  Suffice to say that in our extensive analysis and testing effort, AirLaunch LLC found the use of the lanyard to point the launch vehicle properly was easy and didn't put large loads into the LV, even flying at near 90 deg AoA.  For expendable, unwinged vehicles it is the way to go, as far as we are concerned.

If one plans a winged reusable, it would not be particularly suitable.

So... we SHOULD request a HMXHMX Q-&-A thread then....


Though that's kind of the sense I was getting from what I've been reading. Not that a winged LV was an overall "bad" idea just that it would not lend itself well to the T-and-L drop system.

(And I will TRY and avoid combining Air-and-Launch in one word from now on... Since I added the COMPANY name to my spell-check dictionary I have a bad habit of missing the fact that I often don't actually hit the "space" key hard enough for it register )

Randy

[kevin-rf]

So... we SHOULD request a HMXHMX Q-&-A thread then....

I thought that was what the t/Space thread had turned into

[krytek]

Don't know if this was already mentioned.
It's a Falcon 4, not a Falcon 5 as originally depicted.

[Robotbeat]

Don't know if this was already mentioned.
It's a Falcon 4, not a Falcon 5 as originally depicted.

No, that hasn't been decided, yet. They were talking about going either way during the press conference.

[krytek]

was quoting a more recent article, during which their CEO said 4.
http://michaelbelfiore.com/2012/01/stratolaunch-worlds-biggest-airplane-to-launch-spaceships.html

[ugordan]

was quoting a more recent article, during which their CEO said 4.
http://michaelbelfiore.com/2012/01/stratolaunch-worlds-biggest-airplane-to-launch-spaceships.html

"Merlin IB engines", eh?


Ah, I see in the comments it's cleared up to be 1D after all.

[MP99]

-The retired Space Shuttle processing buildings and runway at Cape Canaveral are envisioned as Stratolaunch’s base of operations.

Hadn't noticed this before. Is it new?

cheers, Martin

[RanulfC]

-The retired Space Shuttle processing buildings and runway at Cape Canaveral are envisioned as Stratolaunch’s base of operations.

Hadn't noticed this before. Is it new?

cheers, Martin

More confirmation than new I suppose. The original video showed operations out of KSC but I don't think it was explicityly said in the original announcment.

Randy

[docmordrid]

Groundbreaking at Mojave -

http://www.stratolaunch.com/news.html

[Robotbeat]

Groundbreaking at Mojave -

http://www.stratolaunch.com/news.html

...beginning for the hangar and fabrication buildings, which are planned to be completed in ~mid 2013 and ~late 2012, respectively.