Stratolaunch: General Company and Development Updates and Discussions

[yg1968]

Some updates:
http://stratolaunch.com/news.html
http://www.aviationweek.com/Blogs.aspx?plckBlogId=Blog:04ce340e-4b63-4d23-9695-d49ab661f385&plckPostId=Blog:04ce340e-4b63-4d23-9695-d49ab661f385Post:93f4cf2d-14ac-467f-8b7b-51937b3bad05

[Kharkov]

The Falcon Air is another upcoming SpaceX project, intended to be capable of lifting up to 6,100 kilograms into a Low-Earth Orbit. The rocket will not launch from the ground like the Falcon 9 or the upcoming Falcon Heavy, instead it will be carried, up to 2,200 km (1,200 nautical miles) away from the airfield to its launch point and be launched from an altitude of 9,100 m (30,000 feet) by a new, large aircraft which will be designed and built by Scaled Composites & operated by Stratolaunch Systems, which was founded by Microsoft co-founder Paul G. Allen and Scaled Composites founder Burt Rutan.

Obviously, the Falcon Air’s main market will be the direct-to-Geo-Stationary-Transfer-Orbit business. It isn’t likely that such a rocket will be used for launching into inclined orbits, something that the Falcon 9 v1.1 (which has a payload of 13,150kg) is already used for, since that would create the situation of SpaceX competing with… SpaceX. So the Falcon Air will be a direct challenge to the other launch company currently operating in the direct-to-Geo-Stationary-Transfer-Orbit business, Sea Launch.

One problem the rocket faces is, in order to make it to the equator whilst still taking off from the United States, it would have to operate out of Hawaii, flying the 1,300 or so miles to the equator & returning, possibly with the rocket in the event of the launch not taking place at the last minute. Florida is too far away from the equator, given the quoted range.

The cost of developing a modified version of the rocket with four Merlin 1D engines from the current Falcon 9 v1.1, plus the cost of developing the new, very large, six-engine carrier aircraft, plus the cost of developing any fixed infrastructure required, will define the minimum cost of launching something as those costs (or at least the interest on those costs) will, naturally, have to be covered by the launch price.

Sea Launch’s prices aren’t public domain but the Falcon Air, to compete with them, would have to be significantly more reliable than them - difficult because Sea Launch has only had two outright failures & one launch anomaly out of 33 launches - or significantly cheaper than them.

Another factor is the need to compete, in the Geo-Stationary-Transfer-Orbit market, with the Falcon 9 v1.1. According to wikipedia, the Falcon 9, if the GTO payload is less than 3,000kg, costs  only 49.9 million dollars, and if it’s more than that, to a maximum of 4,850kg, 54 million dollars. Unless the Falcon Air is sold very cheaply, it’s likely that any low-weight GTO payloads will be carried by the Falcon 9. SpaceX have no interest in taking business away from their main revenue generator.

So the Falcon Air will compete head-to-head with Sea Launch, raising the following questions:

What will be the development costs of the Falcon Air, the carrier aircraft & any infrastructure and what will be the minimum price of a Falcon Air launch due to the need to service that debt?

What are Sea Launch’s prices & would the Falcon Air compete directly with them or bring additional customers to the market?

What would be the minimum required flight rate for the business to be successful? Three flights a year? More? Less?

What would be the biggest obstacles to the Falcon Air as a commercially successful enterprise?

Could the Falcon Air operate anywhere else & still reach the equator, without breaking the law by taking advanced technology outside the United States?

[Comga]

Excuse me but how is this new or different than any of the old discussions of Stratolaunch on this forum?  yg1968 posted some updates back in October, but your points have all be discussed months ago.  Do you have any news?  Why not ask your questions over there in the existing thread?

You got the term "Falcon Air" from Wikepedia?  That's not adequate.

[cosmicvoid]

You got the term "Falcon Air" from Wikepedia?  That's not adequate.

Not adequate for what? A forum topic? Why not adequate?

[Kharkov]

Excuse me but how is this new or different than any of the old discussions of Stratolaunch on this forum?  yg1968 posted some updates back in October, but your points have all be discussed months ago.  Do you have any news?  Why not ask your questions over there in the existing thread?

You got the term "Falcon Air" from Wikepedia?  That's not adequate.

I took the view that the previous thread was about the announcement & mine was about evaluating the situation going forward, a chance to pull together relevant information in one tight thread, hopefully within a few posts of each other (not spread out) so that a useful, informed discussion could take place thereafter.

[yg1968]

You got the term "Falcon Air" from Wikepedia?  That's not adequate.

Not adequate for what? A forum topic? Why not adequate?

It's the expression used by Stratolaunch here:
http://stratolaunch.com/team.html

Dynetics will provide systems engineering and integration support to Stratolaunch and will build the mating and integration system that will integrate the SpaceX Falcon 9 Air with the Scaled Composites mothership.

[Comga]

You got the term "Falcon Air" from Wikepedia?  That's not adequate.

Not adequate for what? A forum topic? Why not adequate?

It's the expression used by Stratolaunch here:
http://stratolaunch.com/team.html

Dynetics will provide systems engineering and integration support to Stratolaunch and will build the mating and integration system that will integrate the SpaceX Falcon 9 Air with the Scaled Composites mothership.

Fair enough, but this says "Falcon 9 Air" so it is sloppy at best, because it will NOT be a "9".  Perhaps I saw that and ignored it as something written without thinking.  It's a real "Internet Thing", something posted once in haste and now referenced many times. 

For grins, Google "Falcon Air" and you get
"Falcon Air is a Fixed Base Operator (FBO) located at Lawrence Municipal Airport (LWM) just northwest of Boston. We service diverse types of .." and
www.flyfalconair.com , a FAR Part 121Suplemental Uscheduled Flag Carrier with a fleet of MD-83's for charter and
Falcon Air Express, a Miami-based airline whose claim to fame is running a wet T-shirt contest on a charter flight to Mexico
and on and on with no rockets.

But this thread is about Stratolaunch, and that line came from a post trying (successfully) to bring the new post into the old discussion.  That is done.

[yg1968]

I was under the impression that the decision between going with a Falcon 9 or a Falcon 4 or 5 for Stratolaunch has yet to be decided. I understood that Gwynne Shotwell of SpaceX was in favour of the Falcon 9 whereas Stratolaunch was interested in a Falcon with less engines (4 or 5). See this article:

http://www.popularmechanics.co.za/tech/stratolaunch/

Many elements of the design are not yet finalised. Even the number of rocket engines has not been settled: Shotwell wants to stick with nine engines; Wentz wants fewer. “Nine engines are not required for the performance or control of this rocket,” he says. “Including them would add cost and mass.”

[yg1968]

This article isn't new but hasn't been linked before. It has some interesting information on the Falcon 4 or 5 for Stratolaunch.

http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/spacex-aims-to-fly-reusable-testbed-before-2013-371360/

"There are definitely challenges associated with getting that rocket to be captive carried under a giant aircraft," says Shotwell. "That's probably one of the key areas that we're looking at right now: the aerodynamics associated with getting dropped and lighting. Because we won't be vertical, we have to do a pretty heavy manoeuvre to get headed in the right direction."

Shotwell expects to finish a preliminary design review for the Stratolaunch rocket in late 2012, with a critical design review in 2013.

"We're just getting through our system design phase," Shotwell says. "We should have a PDR late this year; CDR sometime in 2013 is the baseline plan. But there's a lot of knobs to turn in terms of max payload to orbit, how many engines you have on the back end, max gimbal angle and so on.

"We've got a number of cases to close," [she] adds. "We're just trying to optimize right now."

[kirghizstan]

Would it make sense to have some sort of dracos on the base of the falcon4/5 to help "push" the rocket into the correct orientation after it is dropped?  This could reduce the reliance on gimbling to orient the rocket

[zaitcev]

Just to restate the obvious, the thrust of Merlin-1D is more than 650,000 Newtons, while the thrust of Draco is 400 Newtons. It does not seem like a good match to use Draco for a vernier engine on the 1st stage (they are used on the 2nd stage).

For comparison, NK-33 thrust is 1,500,000 Newtons. Its companion vernier engine RD-0110R outputs about 300,000 Newtons, for the ratio of 1:5. Draco to Merlin is 1:1600.

[Jason1701]

Would it make sense to have some sort of dracos on the base of the falcon4/5 to help "push" the rocket into the correct orientation after it is dropped?  This could reduce the reliance on gimbling to orient the rocket

Adding Dracos would be a huge change to the stage. Bipropellant hypergols have many associated components.

[HMXHMX]

This article isn't new but hasn't been linked before. It has some interesting information on the Falcon 4 or 5 for Stratolaunch.

http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/spacex-aims-to-fly-reusable-testbed-before-2013-371360/

"There are definitely challenges associated with getting that rocket to be captive carried under a giant aircraft," says Shotwell. "That's probably one of the key areas that we're looking at right now: the aerodynamics associated with getting dropped and lighting. Because we won't be vertical, we have to do a pretty heavy manoeuvre to get headed in the right direction."

Shotwell expects to finish a preliminary design review for the Stratolaunch rocket in late 2012, with a critical design review in 2013.

"We're just getting through our system design phase," Shotwell says. "We should have a PDR late this year; CDR sometime in 2013 is the baseline plan. But there's a lot of knobs to turn in terms of max payload to orbit, how many engines you have on the back end, max gimbal angle and so on.

"We've got a number of cases to close," [she] adds. "We're just trying to optimize right now."

The article dates from May.  Since then, I have heard from two well-placed individuals who are knowledgeable about the project say that SpaceX is not currently actively working on the LV.  But things change on a moment's notice in this industry, so I don't know what is happening right now.  My information is about two months old, but most definitely could not be categorized as rumor.

If I were a betting man, I'd say that Dynetics will end up developing the LV for Stratolaunch, not SpaceX.  It might use Merlin 1Ds, however.

[HMXHMX]

Would it make sense to have some sort of dracos on the base of the falcon4/5 to help "push" the rocket into the correct orientation after it is dropped?  This could reduce the reliance on gimbling to orient the rocket

Adding Dracos would be a huge change to the stage. Bipropellant hypergols have many associated components.

There is a simple method to orient the rocket.

See the t/LAD papers at:  http://airlaunchllc.com/TechPapers.html

[simonbp]

If I were a betting man, I'd say that Dynetics will end up developing the LV for Stratolaunch, not SpaceX.  It might use Merlin 1Ds, however.

Interesting.

Personally, I'd wager on a Scaled first stage structure (they were already doing the wings), with Dynetics as the system integrator and possibly upper stages. Musk's recent disparaging remarks about air launch would then make a lot more sense.

[MikeAtkinson]

If I were a betting man, I'd say that Dynetics will end up developing the LV for Stratolaunch, not SpaceX.  It might use Merlin 1Ds, however.

Interesting.

Personally, I'd wager on a Scaled first stage structure (they were already doing the wings), with Dynetics as the system integrator and possibly upper stages. Musk's recent disparaging remarks about air launch would then make a lot more sense.

It looks like SpaceX completed a high level design several months ago and came up with numbers that did not compare well against ground launched systems. Stratolaunch have had some time to mull this over and Musk seemed to say in one of the interviews that they will be making an announcement about a change of direction soon, but it was not up to him to say anything.

[Comga]

Personally, I'd wager on a Scaled first stage structure (they were already doing the wings), with Dynetics as the system integrator and possibly upper stages. Musk's recent disparaging remarks about air launch would then make a lot more sense.

Do you mean these "disparaging remarks" around 44:40 in Musk's RAeS lecture?

Here is Elon Musk's talk at the RAeS:

I would agree with you on that.

[zaitcev]

Stratolaunch have had some time to mull this over and Musk seemed to say in one of the interviews that they will be making an announcement about a change of direction soon, but it was not up to him to say anything.

Elon made these remarks in the interview to Royal Aeronautical Society:

(just to reduce the number of "in one of the interviews", floating around the Internet)

[yg1968]

I got the impression from that interview that SpaceX would not be involved in Stratolaunch anymore.

[QuantumG]

I got the impression from that interview that SpaceX would not be involved in Stratolaunch anymore.

I can probably safely mention now that I heard that a few months ago from someone who claims to be in the know. But hey, it's just rumors.

Here's the transcript for that interview.

http://shitelonsays.com/transcript/elon-musk-interview-at-the-royal-aeronautical-society-2012-11-16

Some tidbits about Hyperloop in there too.