Stratolaunch: General Company and Development Updates and Discussions

[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.

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

Not an equivalent analogy.  Alaska has resources and is on the same planet.  There are no logistical issues.  Defense of the US was also enhanced.  A Mars colony has no resources that US can use, it does not aid in the defense of the US, it poses a logistical nightmare to support.   Remember my point is as a nation, as for world, society or race is another thing. 

[Jim]

And America is still a British colony...

cheers, Martin

bingo

[Robotbeat]

+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.

You're right it wouldn't provide the sort of return that Alaska, for instance, would.

I'm describing what could happen if there were the will and motivation for it. I have no idea where that will or motivation would come from.

[Jim]

wrong thread for this topic

[go4mars]

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.

It would be interesting to see a pros and cons list from both sides of this arguement.  I guess it all boils down to cost (but am not certain of that).  Let's attempt that list and see how guestimate costs are likely to push the decision.

I'll start with just a few, feel free to pitch in:

pros of 9 engines vs 4 or 5:

greater software commonality
same thrust structure and plumbing as f9 cores
potential to enlarge the tanks (length or diameter) for a bigger future carrier
...

cons of 9 engines vs. 4 or 5:
overkill/optimization
need to shut down multiple engines and throttle down as tanks empty
...


pros of 4 or 5 engine vs. 9:
Optimized design (maximizes mass to orbit)
...


cons of 4 or 5 engine vs. 9:
Less commonality to current manufactory
Needs a software rewrite
Needs new thrust structure and plumbing system
...




Further questions: 

Would either approach have more impact on the likelyhood of eventual rocket reusabilility?

If this is designed for a specific payload (like the X-37 as a random example), is optimization more likely to have a "good enough" around it     i.e. 9 engines? 

[sammie]

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

Pretty successful? It was stored between 1990 and 2001, due to lack of demand. There's only one example flying around and no money or demand to finish the second airframe. It's generally considered too large for regular airports to fly from without a huge amount of additional planning. Not the runway, but the taxi ways and apron space. the An-225 flies commercially but isn't all that busy, and would be collecting dust if it wasn't for the Iraq and Afghanistan missions.

Just like the Stratolauncher, the An-225 can carry cargo outside, but this is never done due to additional engineering and the need streamline and concoon such cargo. The Stratolauncher is even wider then the An-225 and doesn't fit in the normal box airports use to plan their ground infrastructure. All the people that see a bright future for the Stratolauncher plane haven't looked at all the details.

[yg1968]

One thing I was wondering about, could Blue Orgin's proposed rocket be an alternative to SpaceX's rocket for Stratolaunch?

[Blackjax]

One thing I was wondering about, could Blue Orgin's proposed rocket be an alternative to SpaceX's rocket for Stratolaunch?

Is there any source of reliable detail on its design or performance?

[TomH]

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

It is true that naysayers of the time said the same thing about Alaska. Nevertheless, the equivocation does not hold up. It did turn out to take great investment to access the resources of Alaska, but there were great advantages in access to Alaska in contrast to the places of which we now speak. First of all, Alaska is on this planet. It has normal air, a gravity of 1G, edible plants and animals, animals whose fur can provide clothing, trees for building shelter and fire, and was reachable by ordinary people on already existing transportation.

Congress wanted to hang Thomas Jefferson for making the Louisiana Purchase and the Alaska purchase was known as Seward's Folly. Beyond purchase price, the government did make investments in the settlements of these frontiers, however it was average people who did the settling. Highly capitalized fur and trading companies also made significant private investment in exploiting the fur resources, mapping the topography and chronicling information on natives, fauna, flora, and climate at the same time. Lewis and Clark made use of Native Americans and French trapeurs.  John Fremont's mapping expeditions relied on knowledge gleaned from private American trappers and trailblazers. The government assisted greatly in the transcontinental railroad, but much of the financing came from the Big Four bankers made rich through the hard work of individual gold prospectors. Alaska was settled in the same way, by individuals and private corporations. We had no real way of knowing what was in the west prior to Lewis and Clark and we also did not know what resources Alaska would hold. As Lewis and Clark approached St. Louis on their return, prior to any of their reports being published, they were met by numerous groups of individuals headed into that same wilderness to explore and discover.

At the current time, our robotic explorers have already given us a significant idea of what resources lie on other bodies in this system; it is unlikely that there will be discoveries of unobtanium. There is presently nothing to be gained financially from interplanetary mining. The cost is almost infinitely greater than the return on investment. Perhaps in the future, when new forms of propulsion are discovered/perfected [space elevator, a way to neutralize the manner in which the Higgs' Boson (if confirmed) extends its mass field to other subatomic particles, a way to tractor against the fabric of space itself], it will become within the budget of private individuals and corporations to explore and exploit the resources of these extraterrestrial planet(oid)s. That is also the time at which interplanetary military bases will become strategically important to nations and possibly corporations.

Alta California was first discovered by Juan Carbillo and claimed for Spain in 1542. For centuries, settlers went to places other than Alta California for these reasons: 1) CA was 5 times as far as the east coast. 2) CA was separated from Mexico and the east by mountains, deserts, and other hostile elements. 3) Sailing around S. Amer. by either route (Cape Horn/Straits of Magellan) was very dangerous. 4) Most of the rocky CA coast was dangerous to approach by ship. 5) CA gets its rain in winter, but crops grow in spring/summer; irrigation was impractical. In the 1760s, Russians sailing out of the Aleutians down the west coast and engaging in seal fur trade posed a threat to Spain's claim. No European had ever settled Alta California until Father Jupinero Serra established the first mission in San Diego in 1769. A full 227 years passed from the time Spain claimed Alta California until it began settling the same place. If we want to make any extrapolations from the history of exploration and pioneer settlement, they should be these: Exploration and settlement only become feasible when costs are within the budgets of corporations and individuals. Cooperation between government, corporations, and individuals, becomes genuinely and authentically advantageous at that time. Such settlements may be centuries into the future. Settlement of other unsettled places may be less expensive, i.e. at the present time, it would be infinitely easier to settle and mine resources in Antarctica than it would on Luna, Mars or any other extraterrestrial body.

In conclusion, the financial mining potential of extraterrestrial bodies is not a profitable proposition at the present time due to the hostile environment and great costs of access. Future advancement of technology will be required before this happens. The ability of corporations to access such places with no or little government support will be necessary. Exploration of such places needs to remain an endeavor of scientific inquiry at this time.

[Chris Bergin]

Lots of off topic stuff. Get back on topic guys or I'll have to delete posts.

[corrodedNut]

Hee's another article that confirms Stratolaunch's desire to launch from KSC/SLF:

http://articles.orlandosentinel.com/2012-04-08/news/os-ksc-salvage-yard-20120408_1_shuttle-tiles-orbiter-processing-facility-ksc

"We are in discussions with NASA and Space Florida regarding establishing [KSC] as our primary base of operations," said Gary Wentz, Stratolaunch president and CEO. He said he hoped to have an agreement "within the next two months."

Is it plausible that the Falcon4 will be built in Hawthorne, tested in Texas, trucked to Mojave, integrated with the carrier aircraft in Mojave, then flown to KSC and launched there? When would the payload get integrated?

[go4mars]

Hee's another article that confirms Stratolaunch's desire to launch from KSC/SLF:

http://articles.orlandosentinel.com/2012-04-08/news/os-ksc-salvage-yard-20120408_1_shuttle-tiles-orbiter-processing-facility-ksc

"We are in discussions with NASA and Space Florida regarding establishing [KSC] as our primary base of operations," said Gary Wentz, Stratolaunch president and CEO. He said he hoped to have an agreement "within the next two months."

Is it plausible that the Falcon4 will be built in Hawthorne, tested in Texas, trucked to Mojave, integrated with the carrier aircraft in Mojave, then flown to KSC and launched there? When would the payload get integrated?

Yes.  "Primary base of operations."  Implies payload integration in Florida to me.  Not sure how/why Mojave would be needed in this case.  Lower taxes during development? 

[Jim]

Is it plausible that the Falcon4 will be built in Hawthorne, tested in Texas, trucked to Mojave, integrated with the carrier aircraft in Mojave, then flown to KSC and launched there? When would the payload get integrated?

Why go to Mojave?  Just send it to FL to mate with the aircraft.  That is where the payloads will be too.

[corrodedNut]

Is it plausible that the Falcon4 will be built in Hawthorne, tested in Texas, trucked to Mojave, integrated with the carrier aircraft in Mojave, then flown to KSC and launched there? When would the payload get integrated?

Why go to Mojave?  Just send it to FL to mate with the aircraft.  That is where the payloads will be too.

Will they need a big hangar FL to do that? Or can they do it in the open?

[Jim]

Shuttle was mated to the 747 in the open

[simonbp]

Heck, for Stratolaunch, it's much easier than Shuttle. Any hanger that's big enough to hold the aircraft is also big enough to attach the payload in. Or, they could do it outside like Pegasus. Either way, that's not going to be one their main challenges.

[docmordrid]

There's a longish article on Stratolaunch in Popular Mechanics. Apparently the mothership has been designated Model 351, AKA "Roc" after the giant mythological bird of prey....

Article....

[go4orbit]

I am hugely skeptical that this system will ever operate.  Liquid fuel rocket design has been optimized since the beginning for almost purely longitudinal forces on the tank and stage structures.  To make a liquid fuel rocket structurally capable of hanging sideways would vastly increase its dry mass fraction.  Then there's the issue of controlling propellant slosh in a system not undergoing constantly increasing acceleration.  And the safety issue of an abort : the carrier plane is unlikely to be able to land with a fully fueled rocket payload.  Either fuel or the whole booster would have to be dumped.  All these problems go away for a solid fuel booster (think Pegasus)., but that leads to uncompetitive performance.  Spaceship 1/2 are not valid comparisons, as their fuel fraction is much smaller than for an orbital vehicle. I hope Burt Rutan has fun making the carrier aircraft, as that's all we'll ever see from this project.  Stratolaunch is not even half-baked; it's the Windows VISTA of commercial space. 

[Danderman]

  Liquid fuel rocket design has been optimized since the beginning for almost purely longitudinal forces on the tank and stage structures.  To make a liquid fuel rocket structurally capable of hanging sideways would vastly increase its dry mass fraction. 

The above assertion is false. Most launch vehicles are designed to handle longitudinal loads.

[Jim]

  Liquid fuel rocket design has been optimized since the beginning for almost purely longitudinal forces on the tank and stage structures.  To make a liquid fuel rocket structurally capable of hanging sideways would vastly increase its dry mass fraction. 

The above assertion is false. Most launch vehicles are designed to handle longitudinal loads.

No, it is true, launch vehicles are not designed to handle the lateral loads such as those that will be found on Stratolaunch.  Especially those from being suspended horizontally, and then including propellant.