Author Topic: Stratolaunch: General Company and Development Updates and Discussions (Read 1052220 times)

JohnFornaro · « **Reply #800 on:** 01/22/2012 01:40 pm »

Quote from: docmordrid on 01/22/2012 06:00 am

Groundbreaking at Mojave -

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

Quote

Stratolaunch Systems announced today the ground breaking on a production facility and hangar at the Mojave Air and Space Port. Stratolaunch Systems, founded by Paul G. Allen, is a private aerospace development company that will construct a one-of-a-kind composite aircraft for launching medium class payloads to space.

This is more like it, in that "launching medium class payloads to space" does not preclude a "fluffy" winged RLV as the mechanism for that launch.

Blackstar · « **Reply #801 on:** 01/30/2012 03:44 pm »

I could not figure out where this belongs. This is a recent NASA report on horizontal air launch of large rockets.

AnalogMan · « **Reply #802 on:** 01/30/2012 04:02 pm »

Quote from: Blackstar on 01/30/2012 03:44 pm

I could not figure out where this belongs. This is a recent NASA report on horizontal air launch of large rockets.

There was an earlier thread covering the study's interim report, perhaps you could also post the link over there to bring it up to date:

http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=26812.0

Blackstar · « **Reply #803 on:** 01/30/2012 06:51 pm »

Thanks. Just did that.

JohnFornaro · « **Reply #804 on:** 01/30/2012 07:16 pm »

BTW, Thanks for posting Blackstar. Fascinating report. Only up to page 38 or so...

Robotbeat · « **Reply #805 on:** 01/31/2012 09:43 pm »

From Stratolaunch's facebook page:
https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=246721425404354&set=a.240022839407546.56368.171724719570692&type=1&theater
"Aerial view of Mojave site"

go4mars · « **Reply #806 on:** 01/31/2012 10:10 pm »

Quote from: Blackstar on 01/30/2012 03:44 pm

I could not figure out where this belongs. This is a recent NASA report on horizontal air launch of large rockets.

Interesting report to say the least!

"Two additional derived designs were the White Knight X and White Knight XX, enlarged dual-fuselage
variants based on the Scaled Composites White Knight Two. The White Knight X was conceived to carry
roughly 5 times more payload than the White Knight Two, approximately 176,000 lb. The White Knight
XX was conceived as a commercial variant of the dual-fuselage C-5, targeting 750,000 lb payload and
using the same development and production methods as the existing White Knight aircraft. The White
Knight XX had landing gear wider than 175 feet and would not easily take off from a standard runway."

And table 2 shows Dual Fuselage C-5 with a Maximum payload to LEO at 52290 lbs

"White Knight XXX" was perhaps not considered because of the name.

My question: Would a dual fuselage C-5 be about the same as a dual fuselage 747? I seem to think so based on this http://www.aviatorjoe.net/go/compare/C-5_Galaxy/747-400F/
But if an aircraft buff could frame that for me, I would appreciate it. Looks like 747 has more powerful engines...

Page 127: "The following organizations provided written submissions and presentations to the study:" I found this interesting as well.

Galactic Penguin SST · « **Reply #807 on:** 02/20/2012 03:28 am »

Stratolaunch has bought their first 747 for conversion into a carrier aircraft, with the help of Scale Composites. The aircraft is ex. N196UA of United Airlines (line no. 1120).

Article on Parabolic Arc

kevin-rf · « **Reply #808 on:** 02/21/2012 05:36 pm »

That's a -400! Wow, they don't get much more modern or larger than that!!!

(Yes, I know the 747-8i, but only a handful of the freighter variant have been delivered at this point).

QuantumG · « **Reply #809 on:** 02/21/2012 09:58 pm »

Doesn't seem like anyone has posted this yet:

http://www.livestream.com/aiaa/video?clipId=flv_b072a813-f476-48c9-bcdd-a6af2259e60f

go4mars · « **Reply #810 on:** 02/21/2012 10:13 pm »

100 feet between fuselages. (10 minutes in).

RDoc · « **Reply #811 on:** 02/27/2012 06:41 pm »

I couldn't find anything on this, so my question is how realistic is it to get all 4 or 5 engines started in enough synchrony that there won't be too much asymmetrical thrust produced during start up?

The engines are pretty close to the centerline, but even throttled all the way down I'd think a single engine firing on one side, acting against the presumably centerline aerodynamic drag, would produce a lot of torque.

Jim · « **Reply #812 on:** 02/27/2012 06:58 pm »

Quote from: RDoc on 02/27/2012 06:41 pm

I couldn't find anything on this, so my question is how realistic is it to get all 4 or 5 engines started in enough synchrony that there won't be too much asymmetrical thrust produced during start up?

Any grouping of engines can be started at will. Engine start transients and characteristics are fairly repeatable.

I assume you are talking about the launch vehicle.

QuantumG · « **Reply #813 on:** 02/28/2012 11:23 pm »

If there's an updates thread for Stratolaunch, I don't see it, so I'll put this here.

http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/stratolaunch-nears-conclusion-of-systems-design-review-368767/

docmordrid · « **Reply #814 on:** 02/29/2012 07:27 am »

They think a bigger one is possible?

Sure, make one with a 250 meter wing and air launch a Falcon Heavy

Zed_Noir · « **Reply #815 on:** 02/29/2012 08:50 am »

Quote from: docmordrid on 02/29/2012 07:27 am

They think a bigger one is possible?

Sure, make one with a 250 meter wing and air launch a Falcon Heavy

IMO The 100 feet between the fuselages on the current version of the Stratolauncher Carrier aircraft seems to be adequate to stowed a Heavy version of the Falcon 4.

The wing surface area might only need to increase slightly if high lift devices are installedd. But the current used 747 engines must be replaced with something more powerful like the GE 90-115B turbofan (514 kN thrust at sea level). Along with beefing up the wing and rocket launch rack structures plus bigger landing gears.

Jim · « **Reply #816 on:** 02/29/2012 10:51 am »

Quote from: Zed_Noir on 02/29/2012 08:50 am

IMO The 100 feet between the fuselages on the current version of the Stratolauncher Carrier aircraft seems to be adequate to stowed a Heavy version of the Falcon 4.

How so? The Falcon 4 is not structurally similar to Falcon 9, so how are the boosters going to be supported?

docmordrid · « **Reply #817 on:** 02/29/2012 11:38 am »

Just add 2 more pylons

go4mars · « **Reply #818 on:** 02/29/2012 06:22 pm »

Quote

"However, it is not beyond a stretch of the imagination, if a customer were to come to us and say, 'I need an externally carried large payload of significant mass and also volume requirements,' we would certainly value the opportunity to take a swing at satisfying those requirements."

According to Stratolaunch chief executive Gary Wentz, a larger version of the aircraft is feasible for launching larger rockets or carrying outsize cargo. "Based on physics and aerodynamics, scaling up is feasible," he said. "Material selection and design of the wing structure will have a great effect."

I wonder at what size-point it makes more sense to take off from water or ice instead of a regular runway.

There are plenty of lakes and rivers that could accomodate aquatic landing strips of 30000 feet long. Fishermen, ice-skaters , luxury home developers, and ducks unlimited wouldn't mind if new "aquastrips"? were built near airports.

Robotbeat · « **Reply #819 on:** 02/29/2012 06:48 pm »

Quote from: go4mars on 02/29/2012 06:22 pm

Quote
"However, it is not beyond a stretch of the imagination, if a customer were to come to us and say, 'I need an externally carried large payload of significant mass and also volume requirements,' we would certainly value the opportunity to take a swing at satisfying those requirements."

According to Stratolaunch chief executive Gary Wentz, a larger version of the aircraft is feasible for launching larger rockets or carrying outsize cargo. "Based on physics and aerodynamics, scaling up is feasible," he said. "Material selection and design of the wing structure will have a great effect."

I wonder at what size-point it makes more sense to take off from water or ice instead of a regular runway.

There are plenty of lakes and rivers that could accomodate aquatic landing strips of 30000 feet long. Fishermen, ice-skaters , luxury home developers, and ducks unlimited wouldn't mind if new "aquastrips"? were built near airports.

Ummm... Now you have to design for yet another environment and your costs continue to increase...