Stratolaunch: General Company and Development Updates and Discussions

[mmeijeri]

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

Heh, the other day I came across a paper that discussed a seaplane RLV concept:

Water Horizontal Take-off and Landing (HTHL) Reusable Launch Vehicle (RLV) Concept

[Comga]

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 want to thank Mr Wentz for a great excuse for people here to do what they seem to enjoy so much: wild extrapolation.  Take an announced system and speculate on what the third generation can do, how big it can be made.

My suspicion is that he was trying to rebut the idea that the Stratolaunch carrier is impractically large by saying how it is physically possible to make one even larger with current methods and materials.

[beancounter]

I can't wait to see this beast in the air.  Sure going to be a sight.  If nothing else, it'll increase the tourist spend

[Zed_Noir]

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?

Just add 2 more pylons

There would be a giant pylon or pod needed to carry a F4 from ground to launch.

Figure some sort of array of ejector racks mounted underneath sponsons like on North American/Rockwell Intl OV-10 Bronco lower fuselage.

Also it would be better distribution of the load on the wing structure if the F4 pylon/pod/ejector rack is by multiple hardpoints.

[yg1968]

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/

Although Stratolaunch eventually hopes to launch people into orbit and will build to strict human spaceflight standards, design efforts are on hold while the focus is on building and testing the launch system.

I am not sure what this paragraph means. Does it mean that launching humans is only a secondary goal for Stratolaunch?

[JohnFornaro]

Although Stratolaunch eventually hopes to launch people into orbit and will build to strict human spaceflight standards, design efforts are on hold while the focus is on building and testing the launch system.

I am not sure what this paragraph means. Does it mean that launching humans is only a secondary goal for Stratolaunch?

That's how I would read it. 

I see it a bit differently.  First, they'll build and test the launch system.  while they're doing that, they won't be designing the human launch system.  After the building and testing of the launch system is complete, then they will design the human launch system.

[yg1968]

It does. I should have been clearer. I was wondering if Stratolaunch was essentially stating that they would focus on cargo in the near term and carrying humans was only a distant goal. But I think that John may be right saying that this is not necessarily the case in the sense that what they are proposing to do is the logical way of doing things regardless if carrying humans is a primary or secondary goal.

[Jim]

Although Stratolaunch eventually hopes to launch people into orbit and will build to strict human spaceflight standards, design efforts are on hold while the focus is on building and testing the launch system.

It could also mean just the aircraft with no rocket

[go4mars]

100 feet between fuselages.  (10 minutes in).

Changed to 'reflect' maximum numbers...

"Boogie-board shape"?  Triple-binary 8m10m kinkers?  No need to pay for an SLS launch?  (Not) Designing the optics for the space environment?
...
Here's a comparison assuming monolithic mirrors...:

SLS telescope                              Stratolaunch telescope
launch cost (billion bucks?)       cost (nocturnal lease agreement)
140 ton max                                  500 ton max         (irrelevant in both cases)
8 m mirror                                     24  30mx2 mirrors (boogie) or 6 x 8  10m mirrors (three double-ended kinkers)
50 square meters                         900  1400 square meters or 300  470 square meters 
repair cost (billion bucks?)          Access is free and easy
design everything for space        Don't design everything for space environment

...
SOFIA (bless her little heart) is <5 square meters.

[yg1968]

Some pictures of the construction:
http://www.parabolicarc.com/2012/03/24/mojave-airport-expansion-spring-spruce-up-in-pictures/

[Ronsmytheiii]

Although Stratolaunch eventually hopes to launch people into orbit and will build to strict human spaceflight standards, design efforts are on hold while the focus is on building and testing the launch system.

It could also mean just the aircraft with no rocket

Indeed, the An-225 has been pretty successful as a cargo craft, one can imagine the stratolaunch carrier could lift much larger (or bulky) cargo

[Moe Grills]

Although Stratolaunch eventually hopes to launch people into orbit and will build to strict human spaceflight standards, design efforts are on hold while the focus is on building and testing the launch system.

It could also mean just the aircraft with no rocket

Indeed, the An-225 has been pretty successful as a cargo craft, one can imagine the stratolaunch carrier could lift much larger (or bulky) cargo

OK! I just leafed through the latest Popular Mechanics about the Mega Jet. 250 tons of cargo can be hefted into the air and flown long distances by the enormous plane, according to the PM writer.
2015 is supposed be its first test flight when, according to PM magazine, "it will" fly.
The PM editors like to use words like "it will", not "maybe".
They sure have made fools of themselves over the years

Problem is? Where the hell are all those airfields around the world that
can handle a 600 ton aircraft?

[Blackjax]

Although Stratolaunch eventually hopes to launch people into orbit and will build to strict human spaceflight standards, design efforts are on hold while the focus is on building and testing the launch system.

It could also mean just the aircraft with no rocket

Indeed, the An-225 has been pretty successful as a cargo craft, one can imagine the stratolaunch carrier could lift much larger (or bulky) cargo

OK! I just leafed through the latest Popular Mechanics about the Mega Jet. 250 tons of cargo can be hefted into the air and flown long distances by the enormous plane, according to the PM writer.
2015 is supposed be its first test flight when, according to PM magazine, "it will" fly.
The PM editors like to use words like "it will", not "maybe".
They sure have made fools of themselves over the years

Problem is? Where the hell are all those airfields around the world that
can handle a 600 ton aircraft?

Well, Spaceport America is apparently now going to have a 12,000 foot runway with a lot of clearance around it if that helps.

[yg1968]

http://michaelbelfiore.com/2012/03/my-story-on-stratolaunch-pop-mech-cover.html

A couple of interesting points made in the article.

They haven't yet decided how many engines the rocket will have. Shotwell would prefer the rocket to have 9 engines. Gary Wentz doesn't think that it is necessary for control or performance to have that many engines. He says that having that many engines would add weight and cost.

Test flights will start in Mojave in 2015. But Stratolaunch will only start to launch paid rockets flights in 2020. They will launch from Cape Canaveral.

[Moe Grills]

http://michaelbelfiore.com/2012/03/my-story-on-stratolaunch-pop-mech-cover.html

A couple of interesting points made in the article.

They haven't yet decided how many engines the rocket will have. Shotwell would prefer the rocket to have 9 engines. Gary Wentz doesn't think that it is necessary for control or performance to have that many engines. He says that having that many engines would add weight and cost.

Test flights will start in Mojave in 2015. But Stratolaunch will only start to launch paid rockets flights in 2020. They will launch from Cape Canaveral.

   I think you meant to say, "may" not "will" start in 2015. Same for 2020.
Murphy's Law, nature and Wall Street could intervene negatively; throwing those dates out the window.

Speaking of Murphy's Law? Since it is the 100th anniversary of the Titanic, this planned 600 ton mega-jet shows that humanity is now 'technologically" capable of creating a giant airplane that can carry
over 1600 people (packed soldiers; emergency evacuees, etc) aloft;
as many people as perished in the Atlantic 100 years ago.
 
Fortunately or unfortunately, humanity maybe many centuries or millenia away from creating a spaceship that can carry that many people.

[Robotbeat]

http://michaelbelfiore.com/2012/03/my-story-on-stratolaunch-pop-mech-cover.html

A couple of interesting points made in the article.

They haven't yet decided how many engines the rocket will have. Shotwell would prefer the rocket to have 9 engines. Gary Wentz doesn't think that it is necessary for control or performance to have that many engines. He says that having that many engines would add weight and cost.

Test flights will start in Mojave in 2015. But Stratolaunch will only start to launch paid rockets flights in 2020. They will launch from Cape Canaveral.

   I think you meant to say, "may" not "will" start in 2015. Same for 2020.
Murphy's Law, nature and Wall Street could intervene negatively; throwing those dates out the window.

Speaking of Murphy's Law? Since it is the 100th anniversary of the Titanic, this planned 600 ton mega-jet shows that humanity is now 'technologically" capable of creating a giant airplane that can carry
over 1600 people (packed soldiers; emergency evacuees, etc) aloft;
as many people as perished in the Atlantic 100 years ago.
 
Fortunately or unfortunately, humanity maybe many centuries or millenia away from creating a spaceship that can carry that many people.

Creating a spaceship to carry that many people would be quite easy, actually, if it's just in orbit. ISS is already 450 metric tons with a pressurized volume of over 800 cubic meters. A Bigelow BA-2100 (just to give an example) would have 2100 m^3 of volume. At 30 m^3 per person (which is the same as Salyut 7, which also did long-duration spaceflights), you could fit 70 people in one of those at least. And relatively comfortably for a long-duration flight. A dozen of such modules together (about how many modules ISS has) could fit 840. Squeeze them in a little closer, and you could hit 1600 no problem, though life support would need to be upgraded (though I'm sure you'd get efficiency improvements at scale for that sort of system).

I'm NOT claiming that's going to happen as I described it, but it could happen easily in a decade or so if we wanted to (i.e. roughly Apollo-level "wanting to"). CERTAINLY not millennia. And if we hit full WW2 or full Cold War-level "wanting to," we could colonize Mars with such spacecraft like that as the interplanetary transit vehicles, though it'd take longer. (We spent ~$7-8 trillion on nuclear during the Cold War, probably enough to industrialize Mars and get a pretty sizable colony started... Or actually, several colonies or settlements. That's not counting all the proxy wars, conventional weapons, etc, during the Cold War, which is probably another $10 trillion.) I can't imagine what would cause such a strong impetus to develop, but it's worth understanding what level of resources our nation (and our world) can martial when required.

We don't know our own strength.

[Luc]

+1

It's all about figuring out how to martial those resources and get them aligned with something useful - like colonizing Mars or our Moon.

[Jim]

+1

It's all about figuring out how to martial those resources and get them aligned with something useful - like colonizing Mars or our Moon.

Not a priority for individual nations.   It serves no usefull purpose for the US Govt.  A martian colony would not provide return to the US as a nation.

[ChefPat]

+1

It's all about figuring out how to martial those resources and get them aligned with something useful - like colonizing Mars or our Moon.

Not a priority for individual nations.   It serves no usefull purpose for the US Govt.  A martian colony would not provide return to the US as a nation.

Naysayers of the time said the exact same thing about Alaska.

[MP99]

+1

It's all about figuring out how to martial those resources and get them aligned with something useful - like colonizing Mars or our Moon.

Not a priority for individual nations.   It serves no usefull purpose for the US Govt.  A martian colony would not provide return to the US as a nation.

Naysayers of the time said the exact same thing about Alaska.

And America is still a British colony...

cheers, Martin