Stratolaunch: General Company and Development Updates and Discussions

[woods170]

Looks like it is just a plane without a payload.

So, now that Spacex is not involved will the concept:
a.  Lose its kewl factor
b.  have its viability in doubt
c.  and now have a more critical look at it without the Spacex stamp of approval

1. Sticking a rocket that size underneath a stretched 747 wing does not fit the definition of kewl. Anyone thinking that it actually is (was) kewl has been drinking too much Kool-Aid.
2. It's viability has been in doubt from day 1. Several members on this very forum questioned the viability of the concept.
3. That critical look has been present from the day the concept was presented to the world, even with SpaceX still on board. See point 2.

[Airlock]

I have to say that I was disappointed to hear about StratoLaunch when it came out; Paul Allen could spend the money on way better space projects. That being said, I am not surprised to hear that SpaceX is leaving the project. It was an odd job for them from the beginning, and as (hopefully) we all know around here: rockets are not legos. The structural re-design required to make a falcon work as an air-launched vehicle were too massive to be practical, not that air-launch seems to be practical regardless.

[Archibald]

Not just air launch experience, they have experience with a type of rocket much more suitable for an air-launched platform that SpaceX doesnt have any experience in: solid rockets. Crewed vehicles really dont need too much accuracy, and if it is cheaper the LV could carry an orbital adjust module.

The trouble with solid rocket is their huge mass and low performance. An all-solid vehicle with a payload of 6 tons to LEO would far exceed the big aircraft capability.
It looks like OSC Antares II weights 220 tons, which is comparable to the (speculative and now defunct) original SpaceX booster they planned to use.
Is there other medium-lift, 200 tons launchers candidates ? (how about a ESA stratolaunch made of an A380 parachuting a Vega ? )

There's something wrong with Stratolaunch from day one.

 Why using too big of an aircraft (it can't takeoff out of Mojave) to launch a very ordinary rocket ?
Two hypothesis
- or they want space tourism, but tourists asks for an horizontal take-off "because it is more comfortable or practical" - hence the aircraft.
- or the aircraft is to reach the equator (with the usual advantages) but for what ? the benefit is little, it doesn't justify the expense of the huge aircraft.

[simonbp]

This will be the biggest aircraft in the world and still only able to launch a fraction of what Falcon 9 can, which itself is too small for many commercial launches, especially to GTO.

Source? The aircraft was designed around launching a Falcon 9, so that's the size launch vehicle OSC will build. No more than a F9, but no less either.

Also, since the first stage already has wings, and the carrier already has to launch from a very large runway with is perfect for high-speed gliders, first stage recovery should not be hard. A ConOps could be to fly uprange of the base for launch, which would then allow the first stage to just glide down to land at the base. It's a much more elegant (and safer) first stage recovery scheme than Falcon 9, and one which stresses the vehicle much less, allowing for plenty of reuse.

So, if Stratolaunch can pull off first stage recovery, they are the only current company that I can genuinely imagine being able to compete with SpaceX for launches.

[ugordan]

The aircraft was designed around launching a Falcon 9, so that's the size launch vehicle OSC will build. No more than a F9, but no less either.

No, it was sized to carry a Falcon 4/5 with a shorter 1st stage, etc, never a Falcon 9 and especially not the v1.1 version. Way too heavy for the carrier aircraft.

[Comga]

....
Also, since the first stage already has wings, and the carrier already has to launch from a very large runway with is perfect for high-speed gliders, first stage recovery should not be hard. A ConOps could be to fly uprange of the base for launch, which would then allow the first stage to just glide down to land at the base. It's a much more elegant (and safer) first stage recovery scheme than Falcon 9, and one which stresses the vehicle much less, allowing for plenty of reuse.
...

This is not a bad conjecture to make sense of this confusing (to me at least) program.  "Glide forward" recovery was been discussed (See the old Selenian Boondocks blog from Jon Goff for instance.) and air launch solves the problem of needing a second base aligned with the launch inclination from a fixed launch site.

However, none of the images or videos show first stage recovery or landing gear.  If this was their intent, why would they not show it?  What possible benefit would there be in keeping this to themselves?  Secrecy is understandable if they have some unconventional payload for some unconventional customer, which is still my belief, but hiding first stage recovery?  That doesn't seem advantageous.

[yg1968]

At the annoucement press conference, they had mentionned that reusability of the rocket was possibly a growth option but that it wasn't planned at first.

[Comga]

At the annoucement press conference, they had mentionned that reusability of the rocket was possibly a growth option but that it wasn't planned at first.

Which is why we can conclude that reuseability is not the "silver bullet" that justifies the complexity and expense of Stratolaunch.

Too bad.  Reuseability I could understand.

[yg1968]

I think that one of the arguments for Stratolaunch is the fact that you need much less "human rated" infrastructure (e.g., no need for a crew access tower) to be able to launch a rocket. You could launch from any runway with 12,000 feet with some additionnal infrastructure for the rocket. So it allows orbital spaceports to multiply (as should be the case for suborbital spaceports).

[spectre9]

SpaceX has pulled out and that means this is a failure.

OSC I'm sorry to say cannot produce rockets anywhere near the price of SpaceX.

It was the developments SpaceX had made in cut price Falcon technology that gave Stratolaunch a glimmer of hope that it might succeed.

I'm no rocket scientist but in my opinion there's no way this can compete on price with ground launched vehicles.

The only thing I can see it being used for is commercial suborbital spaceplanes and only if the carrier plane is able to be used at normal existing airports.

[QuantumG]

How about launching military payloads on missions that require the specific capabilities that air launch provides? That was the original speculation as for the usefulness of this vehicle. From the beginning, people have been saying this isn't about price but, now that SpaceX is out of the picture, it is?

[spectre9]

Reply #129 sums up the initial reaction nicely I thought.

Even with SpaceX value was a big concern. The year certainly has gone quick 

What is the specific capability of air launch?

It gets above the clouds and avoids the fog and rain?

[QuantumG]

What is the specific capability of air launch?

It gets above the clouds and avoids the fog and rain?

Yep, and covert single orbit rendezvous.

[spectre9]

Ok cool.

That sounds very useful for avoiding the detector networks I suspect some countries would now have in place.

I'm guessing some of the NRO birds get lots of attention before they disappear out of sight and out of mind.

[Lars_J]

How about launching military payloads on missions that require the specific capabilities that air launch provides? That was the original speculation as for the usefulness of this vehicle. From the beginning, people have been saying this isn't about price but, now that SpaceX is out of the picture, it is?

I'm not sure how much flexibility there will be - won't the carrier aircraft be very limited to the number of airports that can support it?

[hkultala]

SpaceX has pulled out and that means this is a failure.

OSC I'm sorry to say cannot produce rockets anywhere near the price of SpaceX.

It was the developments SpaceX had made in cut price Falcon technology that gave Stratolaunch a glimmer of hope that it might succeed.

I'm no rocket scientist but in my opinion there's no way this can compete on price with ground launched vehicles.

Can you name a single ground-launched vehicle this cannot compete on?

Soyuz?

I think it can compete with Soyuz.

Antares from Wallops?

Stratolaunch can launch to polar trajectories, and can launch considerably bigger payloads because it's already going almost mach 1 at 20km, and can launch at closer to equator which.

Falcon 9?

Falcon 9 is much bigger vehicle, for launching much bigger payloads. It might have considerable better price/kg, but  If you only need half of the capasity of Falcon 9 v1.1, you don't want to pay for the capasity you do not need, you just want the cheapest rocket that can lift your payload.

Falcon 9R will be a tough competitor, if spaceX can make it work though.

[Lars_J]

Stop pretending that you/we know how expensive Stratolaunch will be. Everything is in flux before hardware flies, and especially know that it's not even known what rocket it will launch.

[spectre9]

I don't think people are quite getting this aerodynamic turn thing.

The wing + the loads it will put on the vehicle are going to add a bit of mass. That's not easy when compared to just tilting it vertical on the ground and not needing to design for those side loads.

That's in addition to the carrier plane which itself isn't free and I'm guessing costs a bit more to build than a concrete/steel launchpad.

If anybody knows Paul Allen ask him what he thinks he's doing here please 

[guckyfan]

I don't think people are quite getting this aerodynamic turn thing.

The wing + the loads it will put on the vehicle are going to add a bit of mass. That's not easy when compared to just tilting it vertical on the ground and not needing to design for those side loads.

I thougt of that, too.Plus, he rocket would need landing gear and brakes as well. Take this all together and vertical landing seems a good approach in comparison.

[Zed_Noir]

How about launching military payloads on missions that require the specific capabilities that air launch provides? That was the original speculation as for the usefulness of this vehicle. From the beginning, people have been saying this isn't about price but, now that SpaceX is out of the picture, it is?

I'm not sure how much flexibility there will be - won't the carrier aircraft be very limited to the number of airports that can support it?

I think any of the former and current B52 airbases can can support the Stratolaunch carrier aircraft. Especially if the USAF an/or NRO is a customer. Heck maybe even topping off of the carrier aircraft with USAF aerial tankers so it can take off with partial filled fuel tanks..