Stratolaunch and Orbital - The Height of Air Launch

[Chris Bergin]

http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2013/05/stratolaunch-orbital-air-launch/

New article based on L2 content that includes a great full mission video and a lot of additional information. Used part of content in the article.

--

Previous Stratolaunch Article (the announcement):
http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2011/12/stratolaunch-rutan-designed-air-launched-system-falcon-rockets/

Air Launch Feature:
http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2012/07/commercial-shows-reignited-interest-air-launch-system/

L2 Members: Stratolaunch and "Pegasus II" Master Thread (Video and Additional Information):
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=31801.0

[David AF]

Great work converting all of that into an article. Beautiful system, really hope to see it fly!

[tigerade]

Yay!  Nice article.  It's such a cool system.  I really hope it works out.

[Rocket Science]

Nice piece Chris!  New aerospace projects are always high on the cool factor scale... 

[yg1968]

Excellent article with lots of details! I love these kind of articles!

[robertross]

Super article Chris!

I would love to see this baby fly one day. I wouldn't even mind being a passenger!

Having Orbital on board is a great strategic move.

[mrmandias]

Great info, thanks. 

[arachnitect]

Thanks Chris; I've been waiting for this since the teaser images started showing up on the site.

I wasn't expecting an LH2 upper stage, especially one with two RL-10s.

I still don't understand the business case here.

[ClaytonBirchenough]

Thanks Chris; I've been waiting for this since the teaser images started showing up on the site.

I wasn't expecting an LH2 upper stage, especially one with two RL-10s.

I still don't understand the business case here.

Same here. With Spacex already having modestly low prices and work being done on a reusable launch vehicle, I think Stratolaunch is a dead end. Only advantage I see going for them is more launch windows because of an air launch.

[Jim]

With Spacex already having modestly low prices and work being done on a reusable launch vehicle, I think Stratolaunch is a dead end. Only advantage I see going for them is more launch windows because of an air launch.

Because Falcon 9 V1.1 or F9R are not givens.

[ClaytonBirchenough]

With Spacex already having modestly low prices and work being done on a reusable launch vehicle, I think Stratolaunch is a dead end. Only advantage I see going for them is more launch windows because of an air launch.

Because Falcon 9 V1.1 or F9R are not givens.

As a potential investor, I would be scared off. Profits do not outweigh the risks, IMO.

[Jim]

As a potential investor, I would be scared off. Profits do not outweigh the risks, IMO.

There are no outside investors.

Same would apply to Spacex

[Lee Jay]

With Spacex already having modestly low prices and work being done on a reusable launch vehicle, I think Stratolaunch is a dead end. Only advantage I see going for them is more launch windows because of an air launch.

Because Falcon 9 V1.1 or F9R are not givens.

As a potential investor, I would be scared off. Profits do not outweigh the risks, IMO.

Have a look at the article just before this one:

http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2013/05/mev-rescue-hope-for-crippled-satellites/

I wonder if this one and that one would go well together.  A quick-response to any orbit could possibly mean a quick rescue before an uncontrolled deorbit.

[simonbp]

With Spacex already having modestly low prices and work being done on a reusable launch vehicle, I think Stratolaunch is a dead end. Only advantage I see going for them is more launch windows because of an air launch.

Because Falcon 9 V1.1 or F9R are not givens.

Well, v1.1 physically exists and F9R is at least as far along in development as Pegasus II, so that's not it.

IMHO they have two plausible customers:

1) A customer who doesn't really care about per-launch cost, but does want to control every little aspect of the launch, i.e. USAF and/or NRO (also, what's the singular 5-m faring EELV-class LEO payload?)

2) A manned spacecraft that is not a Dragon, i.e. DreamChaser & CST-100

So, this vehicle is really competing against Atlas V, not Falcon. Looking at from that perspective, it seems like a much safer bet (and makes Atlas V look a lot more shaky).

[Jim]

Because Falcon 9 V1.1 or F9R are not givens.

Well, v1.1 physically exists and F9R is at least as far along in development as Pegasus II, so that's not it.

Falcon 9 V1.1 or F9R viability is not givens

[Chris Bergin]

Thanks for the nice words chaps. Had a LOT of help with that one!

[Jim]

1) A customer who doesn't really care about per-launch cost, but does want to control every little aspect of the launch, i.e. USAF and/or NRO

2) A manned spacecraft that is not a Dragon, i.e. DreamChaser

So, this vehicle is really competing against Atlas V, not Falcon. Looking at from that perspective, it seems like a much safer bet (and makes Atlas V look a lot more shaky).

1.  control every little aspect of the launch is not feasible with this vehicle.

Atlas is not shaky at all.  It is firmest of all US vehicles.  Also, it has more performance than Pegasus II.

[Rocket Science]

With Spacex already having modestly low prices and work being done on a reusable launch vehicle, I think Stratolaunch is a dead end. Only advantage I see going for them is more launch windows because of an air launch.

Because Falcon 9 V1.1 or F9R are not givens.

Well, v1.1 physically exists and F9R is at least as far along in development as Pegasus II, so that's not it.

IMHO they have two plausible customers:

1) A customer who doesn't really care about per-launch cost, but does want to control every little aspect of the launch, i.e. USAF and/or NRO (also, what's the singular 5-m faring EELV-class LEO payload?)

2) A manned spacecraft that is not a Dragon, i.e. DreamChaser & CST-100

So, this vehicle is really competing against Atlas V, not Falcon. Looking at from that perspective, it seems like a much safer bet (and makes Atlas V look a lot more shaky).

Heh, you were thinking Dream Chaser as well... 

[Lee Jay]

Heh, you were thinking Dream Chaser as well... 

Atlas 412 (the planned LV for Dream Chaser) seems to have about twice the LEO payload capacity of this vehicle, so I don't see how this one could get DC to orbit.

[ClaytonBirchenough]

Have a look at the article just before this one:

http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2013/05/mev-rescue-hope-for-crippled-satellites/

I wonder if this one and that one would go well together.  A quick-response to any orbit could possibly mean a quick rescue before an uncontrolled deorbit.

I had read the article. Maybe. I'm still having trouble justifying the development of a new air-launched LV and its enormous carrier plane. Your saying existing LVs couldn't provide an MEV? Also, don't get me wrong, I'm rooting for Stratolaunch I just don't see the business case.

[Rocket Science]

Heh, you were thinking Dream Chaser as well... 

Atlas 412 (the planned LV for Dream Chaser) seems to have about twice the LEO payload capacity of this vehicle, so I don't see how this one could get DC to orbit.

Yup, but good enough for a sub-orbital test flight...

[arachnitect]

Heh, you were thinking Dream Chaser as well... 

Atlas 412 (the planned LV for Dream Chaser) seems to have about twice the LEO payload capacity of this vehicle, so I don't see how this one could get DC to orbit.

Yup, but good enough for a sub-orbital test flight...

If DC has a future, it will be flying in orbit before Stratolaunch has even their carrier aircraft ready.

No definitive schedule has yet been produced for Stratolaunch, although it is hoped the carrier plane may be ready in time for a 2017 test flight.

[Chris Bergin]

Heh, you were thinking Dream Chaser as well... 

Atlas 412 (the planned LV for Dream Chaser) seems to have about twice the LEO payload capacity of this vehicle, so I don't see how this one could get DC to orbit.

Yup, but good enough for a sub-orbital test flight...

If DC has a future, it will be flying in orbit before Stratolaunch has even their carrier aircraft ready.

No definitive schedule has yet been produced for Stratolaunch, although it is hoped the carrier plane may be ready in time for a 2017 test flight.

There's more chance Dream Chaser won't ever fly, if they are relying on NASA Commercial Crew funding and the downselect to one is next year. Best case scenario now is flying NASA astronauts - likely 2018. Potential test flight earlier, but it's tighter than you may assume.

Anyway, let's not get dragged off the specifics of this Stratolaunch/Pegasus II pairing, there's plenty of threads on other topic.

[wannamoonbase]

2) A manned spacecraft that is not a Dragon, i.e. DreamChaser & CST-100

So, this vehicle is really competing against Atlas V, not Falcon. Looking at from that perspective, it seems like a much safer bet (and makes Atlas V look a lot more shaky).

2.1 - Spaceship 3?

I see this plan and the schedule and I think that it appears to a thin screen for a more capable Virgin space tourist vehicle.  By 2018 the suborbital hops should seem common place and the next big tourist thrill will be around the corner.  Plus if it takes 10 years from the start till you have a paying costumer they need to get going on the next product.

[R7]

Nice article, Chris.

Antares getting a high energy liquid US upgrade, wohoo!

[butters]

I'm not particularly optimistic about the launch vehicle, but if they replace it with a jet fuel tank, I wonder how much range and endurance that aircraft would have as a powered glider. There are undoubtedly applications for a drone with this kind of gross takeoff weight and wing aspect ratio.

[notsorandom]

Heh, you were thinking Dream Chaser as well... 

Atlas 412 (the planned LV for Dream Chaser) seems to have about twice the LEO payload capacity of this vehicle, so I don't see how this one could get DC to orbit.

Will the Dream Chaser be using the 402 or 412 configuration?

[thydusk666]

Great article Chris!

I'm very surprised about the US choice. Two RL-10s would cost over 70 million $ so I honestly don't see how this could be competitive.

[Lee Jay]

Heh, you were thinking Dream Chaser as well... 

Atlas 412 (the planned LV for Dream Chaser) seems to have about twice the LEO payload capacity of this vehicle, so I don't see how this one could get DC to orbit.

Will the Dream Chaser be using the 402 or 412 configuration?

Jeeze...I keep messing this up - first on CST-100 and now on DC!

402...thanks for the correction.

[RocketmanUS]

Thanks Chris; I've been waiting for this since the teaser images started showing up on the site.

I wasn't expecting an LH2 upper stage, especially one with two RL-10s.

I still don't understand the business case here.

Same here. With Spacex already having modestly low prices and work being done on a reusable launch vehicle, I think Stratolaunch is a dead end. Only advantage I see going for them is more launch windows because of an air launch.

Above the weather and the plane should be able to be ready for another flight quickly with another rocket already prepared. This system could have the potential for a customer to order a launch within 60 days of the needed launch.

The RL-10's it looks like from the article are for the first flights till a new replacement engine can be ready. With the cost from what I've heard going up on the RL-10 the first flights would be pricy. It could be possible that the new engine could be throttable with twice the thrust as one RL-10. If so this could reduce their cost and only needing one engine for LEO or BLEO payloads.

Weather and communication ( quick replacement for failed sats ), military payloads could be some of their potential customers.

With a range of 1,000 nmi they could launch an equator orbit off the coast of S. California ( possible less weather problems for take off ).

Great article Chris!

I'm very surprised about the US choice. Two RL-10s would cost over 70 million $ so I honestly don't see how this could be competitive.

Possible new engine from another provider.

Edit:
What is the thrust and ISP for the 1st stage?

[Lee Jay]

Great article Chris!

I'm very surprised about the US choice. Two RL-10s would cost over 70 million $ so I honestly don't see how this could be competitive.

They don't cost that.

[edkyle99]

Here are my thoughts on "Pegasus II".

1.  Stages 1 and 2 interest me more than Stage 3.  These represent an important expansion of ATK's catalog.  Motors of this family will have uses ranging far beyond this application.

2.  A properly placed launch base will be able to handle every orbit possibility - from one site.  No need to build costly launch pads on both coasts, etc.  There is your business case.

3.  Pegasus II will be as capable as Antares.

4.  Payload growth possibilities are built in.

5.  The Stratolaunch aircraft will likely have other uses.  Perhaps it will become the ultimate Mother Ship.  Perhaps it will be able to haul cargo.  Any such use will augment the business case.

 - Ed Kyle

[thydusk666]

Great article Chris!

I'm very surprised about the US choice. Two RL-10s would cost over 70 million $ so I honestly don't see how this could be competitive.

They don't cost that.

"[...]the $38 million cost for an RL-10 rocket used in the second stages of United Launch Alliance"
http://www.parabolicarc.com/2011/04/12/darma-initiative-affordable-upper-stage-rocket-engine/

[ClaytonBirchenough]

Just wondering, would the PLF be able to be larger since launching at a higher altitude would "simplify" aerodynamics or make the aerodynamic forces less?

[RocketmanUS]

Great article Chris!

I'm very surprised about the US choice. Two RL-10s would cost over 70 million $ so I honestly don't see how this could be competitive.

They don't cost that.

"[...]the $38 million cost for an RL-10 rocket used in the second stages of United Launch Alliance"
http://www.parabolicarc.com/2011/04/12/darma-initiative-affordable-upper-stage-rocket-engine/

So info on the RL-10.
http://history.nasa.gov/SP-4206/ch5.htm

[Lee Jay]

Great article Chris!

I'm very surprised about the US choice. Two RL-10s would cost over 70 million $ so I honestly don't see how this could be competitive.

They don't cost that.

"[...]the $38 million cost for an RL-10 rocket used in the second stages of United Launch Alliance"
http://www.parabolicarc.com/2011/04/12/darma-initiative-affordable-upper-stage-rocket-engine/

Which is wrong, according to Orbital.

L2 link:

http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=31801.msg1046520#msg1046520

[thydusk666]

Sorry, I don't have L2. Can someone please post the correct price for the RL-10?

Thank you.

[ClaytonBirchenough]

Sorry, I don't have L2. Can someone please post the correct price for the RL-10?

Thank you.

Someone on L2 says the RL-10 should cost about half of $38 million in quantities of one, so ~ $17 million each.

P.S. You should get L2 

[Lee Jay]

Someone on L2 says the RL-10 should cost about half of $38 million in quantities of one, so ~ $17 million each.

That wasn't a random someone.  That was someone is a very good position to know.  And "about half" isn't what was said.

[Robotbeat]

I like this. Liquid hydrogen for upper stage is doubly a good idea because it's air-launch (i.e. sensitive to take-off weight more than normal). I wonder if they're partnering with XCOR at all? Who is supposed to work on the later hydrogen engine?

[Robotbeat]

It does occur to me that going all hydrogen/oxygen is the main way that performance could increase to the Atlas V territory, supposing they even care about more performance... Is this on the table? It's not like they can exactly increase the carrier's size...

[Lar]

As a potential investor, I would be scared off. Profits do not outweigh the risks, IMO.

There are no outside investors.

Same would apply to Spacex

Unsubstantiated. SpaceX has VC money behind it. Now, I suspect that this VC money is more patient than the average VC tends to be (given how fan boi ish Steve Jurvetson is about SpaceX ) but still.

The implication that SpaceX has no outside investors is... wrong.

[renclod]

Superb article !

All well until it start talking of a cryogenic third stage...
The idea of hydrogen leaking from the umbilicals of a six engine aircraft sitting on ground makes me nervous.
When one adds the image of an aborted take-off followed by de-tanking tons of liquid H2, it becomes even more interesting.

[Jim]

As a potential investor, I would be scared off. Profits do not outweigh the risks, IMO.

There are no outside investors.

Same would apply to Spacex

Unsubstantiated. SpaceX has VC money behind it. Now, I suspect that this VC money is more patient than the average VC tends to be (given how fan boi ish Steve Jurvetson is about SpaceX ) but still.

The implication that SpaceX has no outside investors is... wrong.

Wrong on two points.  Again.

The VC's roles have reduced in SpaceX and don't really matter at this point.

And the point about outside investors is true.  Stratolaunch is Allen and OSC.

[a_langwich]

Here are my thoughts on "Pegasus II".

1.  Stages 1 and 2 interest me more than Stage 3.  These represent an important expansion of ATK's catalog.  Motors of this family will have uses ranging far beyond this application.

Hmm, these motors might be somewhat related to ATK's ideas for advanced SLS boosters, might they not?  Hmm, on second thought, maybe just the composite casing and sizing...different nozzle, no segments, and different burn characteristics and desired thrust profile. 

2.  A properly placed launch base will be able to handle every orbit possibility - from one site.  No need to build costly launch pads on both coasts, etc.  There is your business case.

What are the safety arrangements?  The article mentioned a 1000-mile round-trip capability, but it seems like a very dangerous, live cargo to be flying over populated areas.  Let's see, two very large solids packaged with liquid hydrogen and liquid oxygen...what could possibly go wrong?  Even after launch, a lot of the existing range safety calcs still apply, right?  Is the mitigating factor the ability to go 1000 miles away out to sea?   
 

5.  The Stratolaunch aircraft will likely have other uses.  Perhaps it will become the ultimate Mother Ship.  Perhaps it will be able to haul cargo.  Any such use will augment the business case.

Agreed.  Not sure how limiting the needed airport capability is.

I wonder how big a diameter payload it would support.  Maybe an alternative to a SuperGuppy or Beluga carrier?  Could you lengthen the landing gear or mod it to squeeze in 5m or 8m stages?  (* squints eyes at pictures *)  5m looks doable if the rear end of the PegII shown is 3.71m.  8m looks like it would need some stretch.  Very handy that the runway at the Cape supports it...

(I'm just throwing out those sizes since larger than ~3.7m has been said to be practically non-road-transportable.)  It looks like Stratolaunch could already carry, from a diameter standpoint, Falcon 9 and Atlas V stages.

[Lee Jay]

The idea of hydrogen leaking from the umbilicals of a six engine aircraft sitting on ground makes me nervous.

Okay, why?

[Elmar Moelzer]

I dont get how this is supposed to change anything. What exactly is their business mode? Why do they think they will attract paying customers for their manned version? It is obviously not going to be cheaper than alternatives for manned missions, but rather it is going to be more expensive. The added flexibility and responsiveness, the main improvement offered by the giant airplane wont really matter that much for manned launches either. That would be more relevant for military missions, I would presume. So I dont see how this is ever going to get them their investment back.

[robertross]

It does occur to me that going all hydrogen/oxygen is the main way that performance could increase to the Atlas V territory, supposing they even care about more performance... Is this on the table? It's not like they can exactly increase the carrier's size...

That got me thinking: can someone comment as to the engine type & variant on the 747-400s purchased? GE or P&W?

Reason I'm thinking this is that, like the C-5 Galaxy (and other military aircraft), the frames & pylons can (sometimes) be strengthened to accept a more powerful engine. Is there perhaps structural margin (or perhaps in a second Stratolaunch plane variant) to increase lift capacity?

[Kharkov]

Shouldn't someone say something about the economics?

I'm sure they can do the engineering for this & it's not impossibe to find the development money but what's this rocket for?

In my opinion, it's for the direct-to-GTO market. Unless it costs less than existing launchers, it probably won't see many customers for inclined orbits. So that leaves direct insertion into GTO.

A couple of the existing players in the GTO business are, SeaLaunch, which for approx 100 million dollars a pop, is able to do 6 tonnes direct to GTO. SpaceX, which for around 54 million dollars a pop, is able to do about 4 tonnes to GTO, launching from about 29 degrees north.

Both exist now, both are operating now, and come 2018 when this rocket is set to enter service, they (Falcon 9 certainly) are likely to be launching frequently. So to make any headway in the market, this rocket would have to cost less than 100 million dollars to put 4-6 tonnes into GTO, and less than 54 million to put less than 4 tonnes into GTO.

Call me Mr. Negative on this but is it really likely to go anywhere?

[ClaytonBirchenough]

I dont get how this is supposed to change anything. What exactly is their business mode? Why do they think they will attract paying customers for their manned version? It is obviously not going to be cheaper than alternatives for manned missions, but rather it is going to be more expensive. The added flexibility and responsiveness, the main improvement offered by the giant airplane wont really matter that much for manned launches either. That would be more relevant for military missions, I would presume. So I dont see how this is ever going to get them their investment back.

Exactly. Stratolaunch is a dead end.

[Robotbeat]

I dont get how this is supposed to change anything. What exactly is their business mode? Why do they think they will attract paying customers for their manned version? It is obviously not going to be cheaper than alternatives for manned missions, but rather it is going to be more expensive. The added flexibility and responsiveness, the main improvement offered by the giant airplane wont really matter that much for manned launches either. That would be more relevant for military missions, I would presume. So I dont see how this is ever going to get them their investment back.

Exactly. Stratolaunch is a dead end.

I disagree. There is some real possibility for quite interesting concepts... I kind of think they're not strongly partnering, but XCOR's two-stage fully reusable orbital rocket concept seems very well-suited to using something like the Stratolaunch carrier.

[Avron]

ditto .. "Exactly. Stratolaunch is a dead end."

[Robotbeat]

ditto .. "Exactly. Stratolaunch is a dead end."

If Jim, Blackstar, and folks like that were saying so, I'd agree. But they are sort of defending this.

Skepticism from experts counts more to me than that from armchair engineers (like myself... for now).

[RocketmanUS]

Shouldn't someone say something about the economics?

I'm sure they can do the engineering for this & it's not impossibe to find the development money but what's this rocket for?

In my opinion, it's for the direct-to-GTO market. Unless it costs less than existing launchers, it probably won't see many customers for inclined orbits. So that leaves direct insertion into GTO.

A couple of the existing players in the GTO business are, SeaLaunch, which for approx 100 million dollars a pop, is able to do 6 tonnes direct to GTO. SpaceX, which for around 54 million dollars a pop, is able to do about 4 tonnes to GTO, launching from about 29 degrees north.

Both exist now, both are operating now, and come 2018 when this rocket is set to enter service, they (Falcon 9 certainly) are likely to be launching frequently. So to make any headway in the market, this rocket would have to cost less than 100 million dollars to put 4-6 tonnes into GTO, and less than 54 million to put less than 4 tonnes into GTO.

Call me Mr. Negative on this but is it really likely to go anywhere?

I dont get how this is supposed to change anything. What exactly is their business mode? Why do they think they will attract paying customers for their manned version? It is obviously not going to be cheaper than alternatives for manned missions, but rather it is going to be more expensive. The added flexibility and responsiveness, the main improvement offered by the giant airplane wont really matter that much for manned launches either. That would be more relevant for military missions, I would presume. So I dont see how this is ever going to get them their investment back.

Exactly. Stratolaunch is a dead end.

Launch when needed. less chance of weather problems. No problems with the range being tide up or a problem with the launch pad.

Given the amount of flight they will most likely need for their per launch they would most likely have an extra or two rockets on hand for the last minute customer.

For crew, who wants to pay for a launch to LEO and then have it delayed. If it is a tourist then they loose out do to bad weather and if they need to return to work can't get a new launch date. For commercial they don't want down time on a station. For some examples.

Like for mail you can pay for same day, next day, or three day ( 1st class ). It is a matter of when it is needed and how much that time is worth.

Right now it is only the Russians that can bring crew to ISS. If this was flying and other American options were still not this could be a good deal for American crew to ISS. Given it will not be ready for some years we will have to see.

Edit:
Given the LEO expected performance and the use of SEP this system could launch the Sat and then have fueled ( Argon ) in LEO. Then take it's self to Geosynchronous orbit.
The Argon could already be in LEO and could be the SEP and just need to attach it's self to the Sat.

[edkyle99]

Shouldn't someone say something about the economics?
...
A couple of the existing players in the GTO business are, SeaLaunch, which for approx 100 million dollars a pop, is able to do 6 tonnes direct to GTO. SpaceX, which for around 54 million dollars a pop, is able to do about 4 tonnes to GTO, launching from about 29 degrees north.

Both exist now, both are operating now, and come 2018 when this rocket is set to enter service, they (Falcon 9 certainly) are likely to be launching frequently. So to make any headway in the market, this rocket would have to cost less than 100 million dollars to put 4-6 tonnes into GTO, and less than 54 million to put less than 4 tonnes into GTO.

SeaLaunch has lost four very expensive satellites in 35 tries and gone bankrupt, leaving Boeing with something like $1 billion in unpaid invoices.  That $100 million number is outdated.  SpaceX doesn't have a rocket right now, or a launch pad, and it has never put anything into GTO.  If and when it gets back into business, it won't be launching GTO satellites for $54 million.   $154 million, or $254 million maybe. 

The average EELV launch is costing the U.S. government $468-ish million, according to the DoD yesterday.  That provides plenty of headroom for new entrants.

 - Ed Kyle

[edkyle99]

I dont get how this is supposed to change anything. What exactly is their business mode? Why do they think they will attract paying customers for their manned version? It is obviously not going to be cheaper than alternatives for manned missions, but rather it is going to be more expensive. The added flexibility and responsiveness, the main improvement offered by the giant airplane wont really matter that much for manned launches either. That would be more relevant for military missions, I would presume. So I dont see how this is ever going to get them their investment back.

I can't figure what the manned spacecraft could be.  If it only weighs 6 tonnes, it would be lighter than Soyuz and Shenzhou, so it seems to me unlikely to be a manned orbital winged spacecraft. 

On the other hand, X-37B weighs less than 6 tonnes.

Meanwhile, Boeing, for one, has announced plans to build all-electric thruster based GTO satellites.  Their plan would result in powerful, long-lived comsats weighing less than 2 tonnes.  Orbital, of course, already builds lots of 3 tonne GTO sats.  An all-electric Orbital GeoStar should easily weigh less than 2 tonnes.  Notice that Pegasus 2 would send 2 tonnes to GTO?

 - Ed Kyle

[DavisSTS]

Very nice article about this. Such an impressive looking system.

[Prober]

Because Falcon 9 V1.1 or F9R are not givens.

Well, v1.1 physically exists and F9R is at least as far along in development as Pegasus II, so that's not it.

Falcon 9 V1.1 or F9R viability is not givens

interesting, would the word "unproven" work?

[Prober]

Thanks for the nice words chaps. Had a LOT of help with that one!

any idea how many G's a payload would get with this design?

[Prober]

Heh, you were thinking Dream Chaser as well... 

Atlas 412 (the planned LV for Dream Chaser) seems to have about twice the LEO payload capacity of this vehicle, so I don't see how this one could get DC to orbit.

they could re-engine the aircraft.  I noted that they are using old 747 engines.   New engines might do the trick.

[edkyle99]

Thanks for the nice words chaps. Had a LOT of help with that one!

any idea how many G's a payload would get with this design?

My guesstimate shows low gees.  They can tailor the solids to produce lower thrust as they go, and there are two of them, so solid motor g-forces shouldn't be big.  The biggest g-force would likely be near the end of the first stage burn for lighter GTO type payloads.  The fact that they would remove one of the RL10 engines from the third stage shows that those forces would also be kept low.  It might be possible to keep acceleration in the 3-4 g maximum range, if desired.  Since they are designing this thing from scratch, they can pretty much set the g-loads wherever they want them.

 - Ed Kyle

[R7]

Since they are designing this thing from scratch, they can pretty much set the g-loads wherever they want them.

Is steady acceleration even that much of a problem for the payload (and the hydrolox US) compared to the vibration loads from solids?

[Avron]

ditto .. "Exactly. Stratolaunch is a dead end."

If Jim, Blackstar, and folks like that were saying so, I'd agree. But they are sort of defending this.

Skepticism from experts counts more to me than that from armchair engineers (like myself... for now).

If this is a commercial venture, there is no way,  based on first principals ,that they can compete in the 2017 time frame, or whenever they do get going .. costs for the service to launch at $/lb and risk cannot compete..  are far higher for the onset .. I know I will not invest..

[Lee Jay]

If this is a commercial venture, there is no way,  based on first principals ,that they can compete in the 2017 time frame, or whenever they do get going .. costs for the service to launch at $/lb and risk cannot compete..  are far higher for the onset ..

How do you know what their costs are going to be?

[Lee Jay]

Heh, you were thinking Dream Chaser as well... 

Atlas 412 (the planned LV for Dream Chaser) seems to have about twice the LEO payload capacity of this vehicle, so I don't see how this one could get DC to orbit.

they could re-engine the aircraft.  I noted that they are using old 747 engines.   New engines might do the trick.

More power doesn't give you double the capacity.  You need more lift and more structure as well.

[edkyle99]

Is steady acceleration even that much of a problem for the payload (and the hydrolox US) compared to the vibration loads from solids?

They'll have to design the vehicle to provide acceptable loads of all types to the payloads.  The short, fat solids will minimize thrust oscillation compared to longer motors.  It is all about de-tuning motors from structures.

Vega and Minotaur and Pegasus and, soon again, Athena, etc., show that a mostly solid motor launch vehicle can haul satellites.  Vega provides a ride as soft, or softer, than Ariane 5.  Ariane 6, of course, is going solid too (Pegasus 2 is almost like a 1/3rd scale Ariane 6). 

To me, this monolithic solid plus high energy upper stage configuration looks more and more like a future standard.  I would like to see a U.S. ground launched version of this type, more capable, to see if it could undercut the bloated EELV costs.

 - Ed Kyle

[Prober]

Heh, you were thinking Dream Chaser as well... 

Atlas 412 (the planned LV for Dream Chaser) seems to have about twice the LEO payload capacity of this vehicle, so I don't see how this one could get DC to orbit.

they could re-engine the aircraft.  I noted that they are using old 747 engines.   New engines might do the trick.

More power doesn't give you double the capacity.  You need more lift and more structure as well.

If the plane is just a demo then its not worth the cost.
 
But if this is a one up project, beefing up the payload area would be worth it.   I guesstimate by switching to the lighter more powerful engines the payload can be 2-4 tons added.
 

[Avron]

If this is a commercial venture, there is no way,  based on first principals ,that they can compete in the 2017 time frame, or whenever they do get going .. costs for the service to launch at $/lb and risk cannot compete..  are far higher for the onset ..

How do you know what their costs are going to be?

From first principals we have an additional cost of the carrier aircraf, if it was any way as efficient as a 747, and was used at a high rate.. "International Civil Association Organization, the average direct operating (airborne) cost of a B 747-400 in the year 2000 was $6,761 per hour"

So lets assume that out the box they got it all right .. I just don't see how that would get away with less than $10K per hour.. oh the ground costs " ground costs are around 70 percent of the airborne costs in 2003."

Maybe there are better sources: http://askville.amazon.com/cost-airline-fly-commercial-jet-York-Los-Angeles/AnswerViewer.do?requestId=2593308

but anyway you hack it..these costs will be added to the LV cost.. so make the investment in the carrier pay off you need a high flight..carrier costs are not going to help you much in lowering the total launch costs.

Oh, you say , but the concept gains you some high and velocity.. wow all of what 11Km and 0.8 mach on a very good day.. these figures are a drop in the ocean compared to the needs .. the cost of a little extra gas on the Lv at say 1% of lv cost, will get  to the same height and velocity for a lot less.

From a cost to orbit , its "failure is the only option"...  I am not investing..

[Lee Jay]

From first principals we have an additional cost of the carrier aircraf,

And the reduction of the cost of a launch pad, which is a very expensive thing.  Both need a vehicle integration facility of some sort.

Pads can cost hundreds of millions to build and get operational.  Look at what Orbital just went through with Antares.  They know those costs first hand.

if it was any way as efficient as a 747, and was used at a high rate.. "International Civil Association Organization, the average direct operating (airborne) cost of a B 747-400 in the year 2000 was $6,761 per hour"

So lets assume that out the box they got it all right .. I just don't see how that would get away with less than $10K per hour.. oh the ground costs " ground costs are around 70 percent of the airborne costs in 2003."

$10k per hour for a 3 hour launch campaign that has an overall cost that's in the tens of millions is so low it's not even worth mentioning.

How about this...a single scrub due to weather can cost over a million dollars.  If this thing saves that cost on a regular basis, that can amount to a big savings.

[renclod]

From first principals we have an additional cost of the carrier aircraf,

And the reduction of the cost of a launch pad, which is a very expensive thing.  Both need a vehicle integration facility of some sort.

IMO They still need launch-pad-like facilities on the ground, such as:
- large area lightning protection
- LOX and LH2 handling (tanking + detanking)
- solids handling

Range safety must still be available from the hangar on to all the lenght of the runway. Need secured perimeter for hangar and runway. Bird ingestion in engine(s) is an extra threat. If the aircraft sits incapacitated at the far end of the runway they need a way to detank cryogenics there.

[robertross]

From first principals we have an additional cost of the carrier aircraf,

And the reduction of the cost of a launch pad, which is a very expensive thing.  Both need a vehicle integration facility of some sort.

IMO They still need launch-pad-like facilities on the ground, such as:
- large area lightning protection
- LOX and LH2 handling (tanking + detanking)
- solids handling

That's more like aircraft ground facilities with an industrial base.
Actually, it's a lot like shuttle landing facilities, with prep for SRBs.

[Avron]

From first principals we have an additional cost of the carrier aircraf,

And the reduction of the cost of a launch pad, which is a very expensive thing.  Both need a vehicle integration facility of some sort.

Pads can cost hundreds of millions to build and get operational.  Look at what Orbital just went through with Antares.  They know those costs first hand.

if it was any way as efficient as a 747, and was used at a high rate.. "International Civil Association Organization, the average direct operating (airborne) cost of a B 747-400 in the year 2000 was $6,761 per hour"

So lets assume that out the box they got it all right .. I just don't see how that would get away with less than $10K per hour.. oh the ground costs " ground costs are around 70 percent of the airborne costs in 2003."

$10k per hour for a 3 hour launch campaign that has an overall cost that's in the tens of millions is so low it's not even worth mentioning.

How about this...a single scrub due to weather can cost over a million dollars.  If this thing saves that cost on a regular basis, that can amount to a big savings.

If only.. these are additional cost on top of the LV cost and that is flight time.. ground time is at a discount 30% less.. now do the math..  no savings.. more risks.. more cost.. less lbs to orbit for the $

[edkyle99]

Oh, you say , but the concept gains you some high and velocity.. wow all of what 11Km and 0.8 mach on a very good day.. these figures are a drop in the ocean compared to the needs .. the cost of a little extra gas on the Lv at say 1% of lv cost, will get  to the same height and velocity for a lot less.

This type of air launch method offers gains of perhaps 400-500 m/s delta-v over a ground launch equivalent.  Almost all of the gain is due to the initial altitude, not the speed.  A ground launch version would need to weigh perhaps 25-30% more than an air launched version to lift the same payload.  That's not trivial.

Any comparison of air versus ground has to compare two launch sites versus one air strip site, given azimuth limitations of U.S. ground sites.

 - Ed Kyle

[Lee Jay]

If only.. these are additional cost on top of the LV cost and that is flight time.. ground time is at a discount 30% less.. now do the math..  no savings.. more risks.. more cost.. less lbs to orbit for the $

Please forget the flight time - it's nothing.  And what you did wasn't doing the math, it was hand waving.  If you're going to do the math, then you need to have the numbers and do it.  You don't have the numbers.

[joek]

...
In my opinion, it's for the direct-to-GTO market. Unless it costs less than existing launchers, it probably won't see many customers for inclined orbits. So that leaves direct insertion into GTO.

A couple of the existing players in the GTO business are, SeaLaunch, which for approx 100 million dollars a pop, is able to do 6 tonnes direct to GTO. SpaceX, which for around 54 million dollars a pop, is able to do about 4 tonnes to GTO, launching from about 29 degrees north.

Not sure why they wouldn't be competitive for NGSO?  Seems that given the ability to "dial an azimuth" they would have some advantages.  Also, the NGSO market has been increasing and is projected to increase significantly over the next 10 years with total NGSO satellites exceeding GSO by ~50% (altho number of NGSO launches is projected to be significantly lower than GSO launches).

For GSO over the next decade, 60% (13.7 launches/yr) of the projected market is for satellites up to 5400kg, and 40% (9.1 launches/yr) for satellites up to 4200kg.  That seems sufficient without having to complete in the heavy class (>5400kg ).  For more information on those forecasts, see here.

[Elmar Moelzer]

Shouldn't someone say something about the economics?

I'm sure they can do the engineering for this & it's not impossibe to find the development money but what's this rocket for?

In my opinion, it's for the direct-to-GTO market. Unless it costs less than existing launchers, it probably won't see many customers for inclined orbits. So that leaves direct insertion into GTO.

A couple of the existing players in the GTO business are, SeaLaunch, which for approx 100 million dollars a pop, is able to do 6 tonnes direct to GTO. SpaceX, which for around 54 million dollars a pop, is able to do about 4 tonnes to GTO, launching from about 29 degrees north.

Both exist now, both are operating now, and come 2018 when this rocket is set to enter service, they (Falcon 9 certainly) are likely to be launching frequently. So to make any headway in the market, this rocket would have to cost less than 100 million dollars to put 4-6 tonnes into GTO, and less than 54 million to put less than 4 tonnes into GTO.

Call me Mr. Negative on this but is it really likely to go anywhere?

I dont get how this is supposed to change anything. What exactly is their business mode? Why do they think they will attract paying customers for their manned version? It is obviously not going to be cheaper than alternatives for manned missions, but rather it is going to be more expensive. The added flexibility and responsiveness, the main improvement offered by the giant airplane wont really matter that much for manned launches either. That would be more relevant for military missions, I would presume. So I dont see how this is ever going to get them their investment back.

Exactly. Stratolaunch is a dead end.

Launch when needed. less chance of weather problems. No problems with the range being tide up or a problem with the launch pad.

As I said, that is about the only advantage that I see of airlaunch with a 3 stage expendable rocket versus ground launch with a cheaper (and partially reusable) rocket.

For crew, who wants to pay for a launch to LEO and then have it delayed. If it is a tourist then they loose out do to bad weather and if they need to return to work can't get a new launch date. For commercial they don't want down time on a station. For some examples.

I dont buy it. The cost of access to LEO is right now the biggest limiting factor for space tourism. This does not reduce the cost of access to LEO. It wont make a difference to the current situation.

I only see a very limited amount of customers who would be willing to pay a (probably) significant premium for more responsiveness and more flexibility. The military being the main one.

I disagree. There is some real possibility for quite interesting concepts... I kind of think they're not strongly partnering, but XCOR's two-stage fully reusable orbital rocket concept seems very well-suited to using something like the Stratolaunch carrier.

XCORs two stage fully reusable system would indeed change things, but that is not what they are doing right now. Right now they are going with Orbitals 3 stage expendable and that is what I was referring to. I would say something very different, were they to do the XCOR thing.

[RocketmanUS]

For crew, who wants to pay for a launch to LEO and then have it delayed. If it is a tourist then they loose out do to bad weather and if they need to return to work can't get a new launch date. For commercial they don't want down time on a station. For some examples.

I dont buy it. The cost of access to LEO is right now the biggest limiting factor for space tourism. This does not reduce the cost of access to LEO. It wont make a difference to the current situation.

I only see a very limited amount of customers who would be willing to pay a (probably) significant premium for more responsiveness and more flexibility. The military being the main one.
{snip}

For space tourist it might only be one per year ( adding to their total launches for the year for their business case ). A space tourist personnel schedule might not be flexible enough for ground launch with possible launch delays.

Keep in mind the price is not everything when launching a payload.

[Avron]

If only.. these are additional cost on top of the LV cost and that is flight time.. ground time is at a discount 30% less.. now do the math..  no savings.. more risks.. more cost.. less lbs to orbit for the $

Please forget the flight time - it's nothing.  And what you did wasn't doing the math, it was hand waving.  If you're going to do the math, then you need to have the numbers and do it.  You don't have the numbers.

I did my math,, Elon did it before.. I will not invest, you are welcome to do so.. I have all the numbers I need.. and all of them are above and beyond a basic LV..

[Avron]

Oh, you say , but the concept gains you some high and velocity.. wow all of what 11Km and 0.8 mach on a very good day.. these figures are a drop in the ocean compared to the needs .. the cost of a little extra gas on the Lv at say 1% of lv cost, will get  to the same height and velocity for a lot less.

This type of air launch method offers gains of perhaps 400-500 m/s delta-v over a ground launch equivalent.  Almost all of the gain is due to the initial altitude, not the speed.  A ground launch version would need to weigh perhaps 25-30% more than an air launched version to lift the same payload.  That's not trivial.

Any comparison of air versus ground has to compare two launch sites versus one air strip site, given azimuth limitations of U.S. ground sites.

 - Ed Kyle

initially when I looked at air launch, I wondered what had taken so long, STS came an went...  a $200 M  launch needed $500M just to get to the pad..  the LV was supposed to be reusable, it was rebuild-able .. in a commercial world that would have been dead,,. but because the powers controlled the people.. nothing hatppened.. other than waste.. but I digress...

There is a finite size that can be air-launched,,  that is minute compared to what can be ground launched.. size matters, as it should bring down the cost to orbit.. so its game over at start..  again, first principals tell me not to invest. you are welcome to do so.. 

[Lee Jay]

I did my math,,

Show your work.

[deltaV]

I'm not particularly optimistic about the launch vehicle, but if they replace it with a jet fuel tank, I wonder how much range and endurance that aircraft would have as a powered glider. There are undoubtedly applications for a drone with this kind of gross takeoff weight and wing aspect ratio.

A Stratolaunch aircraft plus its first solid stage could throw a ~100 tonne munition at ~2 km/s (~400 km range ballistic trajectory). This could be useful for destruction of high value targets such as underground command bunkers and aircraft carriers. A kinetic energy penetrator design, e.g. a 1-meter diameter 12 meter long steel arrow, would presumably be pretty resistant to defensive systems designed to destroy incoming ordinance of ordinary size. Alternatively half a dozen ordinary Massive Ordinance Penetrator bunker buster bombs could defeat countermeasures by sheer number.

[Hauerg]

I'm not particularly optimistic about the launch vehicle, but if they replace it with a jet fuel tank, I wonder how much range and endurance that aircraft would have as a powered glider. There are undoubtedly applications for a drone with this kind of gross takeoff weight and wing aspect ratio.

A Stratolaunch aircraft plus its first solid stage could throw a ~100 tonne munition at ~2 km/s (~400 km range ballistic trajectory). This could be useful for destruction of high value targets such as underground command bunkers and aircraft carriers. A kinetic energy penetrator design, e.g. a 1-meter diameter 12 meter long steel arrow, would presumably be pretty resistant to defensive systems designed to destroy incoming ordinance of ordinary size. Alternatively half a dozen ordinary Massive Ordinance Penetrator bunker buster bombs could defeat countermeasures by sheer number.

And since this carrier aircraft is SOOOO fast there is no way it could be intercepted by anything. 

[Avron]

I did my math,,

Show your work.

LV plus $5M min a month( just ground costs).. is more than LV plus zero

[edkyle99]

There is a finite size that can be air-launched,,  that is minute compared to what can be ground launched.. size matters, as it should bring down the cost to orbit.. so its game over at start..  again, first principals tell me not to invest. you are welcome to do so.. 

It is true that a finite size can be air launched.  It is also true that the bigger the rocket, the bigger the cost.  Size also matters in that regard.  If you want to save money, smaller is better.  That is why electric propulsion is going to replace bi-propellants on commercial GTO sats, cutting their weight (and launch cost) in half.  This technology will put legitimate GTO work within the realm of air launch and Pegasus 2.  Think about what that massive shift will do to the existing, expensive, unfinite-size launch vehicle line-up. 

An air launch rocket is smaller than an equivalent ground launch rocket.  If smaller is cheaper, well, there you go. 

 - Ed Kyle

[edkyle99]

LV plus $5M min a month( just ground costs).. is more than LV plus zero

You'll have to rethink that zero.  ULA gets something like $1 billion per year per launch vehicle just to run its factory and launch pads.  The rockets and launches cost extra.

 - Ed Kyle

[john smith 19]

If you want to save money, smaller is better.  That is why electric propulsion is going to replace bi-propellants on commercial GTO sats, cutting their weight (and launch cost) in half.

Well electric propulsion is being accepted for station keeping but maybe 30% of the sat mass is for the stage to get it to GEO, either solid or a storable engine fed by oversized station keeping tanks. IIRC a typical size is about 400lbs. I'd be very excited to find anyone who has an 1800N electric engine as without it you're looking at lots of passes through the Van Allan belts, leaving the hardware well toasted.

I think it's more likely the operators would just specify more transponders and bigger PV panels to to power them.

  This technology will put legitimate GTO work within the realm of air launch and Pegasus 2.  Think about what that massive shift will do to the existing, expensive, unfinite-size launch vehicle line-up. 

An air launch rocket is smaller than an equivalent ground launch rocket.  If smaller is cheaper, well, there you go. 
 - Ed Kyle

Except on past performance of Orbital with Pegasus smaller is not cheaper and (IIRC) it had the reputation of having the highest $/lb figure in the US launch industry.

If the payloads were big enough to fly as primary on a bigger launcher they would. I'm not even sure they were competitive with flying as secondary on other launchers. IOW Orbital's core customer base was small sats with orbital spec's not viably reachable from being dropped off a GTO stage.

Atlas V, Delta IV, Ariane and now F9 all carry secondary payloads. Could there be a reason Pegasus has not flown very frequently?

[Prober]

From first principals we have an additional cost of the carrier aircraf,

How about this...a single scrub due to weather can cost over a million dollars.  If this thing saves that cost on a regular basis, that can amount to a big savings.

the downside for me is the location or use of Fla to launch.  Let's face it, the weather with such a large plane will create some new issues.
 
Moving the plane to another location creates problems of a runway large enough

[john smith 19]

Moving the plane to another location creates problems of a runway large enough

According to the piece they are taking over a chunk of Mojave airport on a 20 year lease. So while they could use the FLA site they don't have to.

[Avron]

LV plus $5M min a month( just ground costs).. is more than LV plus zero

You'll have to rethink that zero.  ULA gets something like $1 billion per year per launch vehicle just to run its factory and launch pads.  The rockets and launches cost extra.

 - Ed Kyle

Not sure if thats a good value to a nation that is facing financial crises..   Russia rents Baikonur for $115 M a year..  85 sq k, I think..     Need to buy more LMT.. humm maybe a little late..

[floss]

A big runway is a local politicians dream plenty of jobs for the locals so I would not let runways be a limiting factor.

[Lar]

LV plus $5M min a month( just ground costs).. is more than LV plus zero

You'll have to rethink that zero.  ULA gets something like $1 billion per year per launch vehicle just to run its factory and launch pads.  The rockets and launches cost extra.

 - Ed Kyle

Not sure if thats a good value to a nation that is facing financial crises..   Russia rents Baikonur for $115 M a year..  85 sq k, I think..     Need to buy more LMT.. humm maybe a little late..

Seems like a lot to me too. Not exactly a level playing field for ULA competitors either.

[Jim]

Seems like a lot to me too. Not exactly a level playing field for ULA competitors either.

ULA has no competitors.  Nobody else has demonstrated a vehicle capable of meeting EELV requirements.

Then again, COTS wasn't a level playing field for Spacex and OSC competitors.

[Jim]

Not sure if thats a good value to a nation that is facing financial crises..   

It is a very good value to sustain requirements that national defense needs

[joek]

I'd be very excited to find anyone who has an 1800N electric engine...

Don't need it and all-eclectic is happening; see, e.g., Electric propulsion could launch new commercial trend, Spaceflight Now, Mar 2012.  Two are being built for Satmex and two for ABS.

As Ed said, all-electric puts GEO in reach of smaller/cheaper LVs, which is one reason Satmex and ABS chose the Boeing 702-SP XIPS configuration.  At less than 2000kg, they are well within Stratolaunch's claimed GTO capabilities. As to whether Stratolaunch will be competitive in that arena, only time will tell.

[edkyle99]

If you want to save money, smaller is better.  That is why electric propulsion is going to replace bi-propellants on commercial GTO sats, cutting their weight (and launch cost) in half.

Well electric propulsion is being accepted for station keeping but maybe 30% of the sat mass is for the stage to get it to GEO, either solid or a storable engine fed by oversized station keeping tanks. IIRC a typical size is about 400lbs. I'd be very excited to find anyone who has an 1800N electric engine as without it you're looking at lots of passes through the Van Allan belts, leaving the hardware well toasted.

I think it's more likely the operators would just specify more transponders and bigger PV panels to to power them.

Time to recalibrate our thinking on this business.  This is happening. 
http://spaceflightnow.com/news/n1203/19boeing702sp/
http://www.boeing.com/boeing/defense-space/space/bss/factsheets/702/702SP.page

Except on past performance of Orbital with Pegasus smaller is not cheaper and (IIRC) it had the reputation of having the highest $/lb figure in the US launch industry.

Pegasus is a smallsat, LEO-only launcher, so it has a limited application (though it was busy during the late 1990s).  Pegasus 2 will be a new ballgame.  Also, dollars per pound isn't the key factor.  What matters is fewest total dollars to accomplish the mission.

 - Ed Kyle

[simonbp]

Nobody else has demonstrated a vehicle capable of meeting EELV requirements.

I think that is exactly their goal here, to provide Light-to-Medium EELV launch to the US government. ULA doesn't currently offer any options for EELV Light-class payloads (since Delta II stopped production) and the costs of Medium payloads are continually going up.

So again, it's better to think of Stratolaunch as an Atlas competitor, rather than a Falcon competitor. Doesn't mean they'll be successful, just that seems to be their strategy.

[Jim]

Quite the opposite.  Since is it is a small to medium EELV Class that puts it in Falcon9 and Antares territory and  Just because Atlas is performing missions in that range doesn't mean it owns it

[john smith 19]

Time to recalibrate our thinking on this business.  This is happening. 
http://spaceflightnow.com/news/n1203/19boeing702sp/
http://www.boeing.com/boeing/defense-space/space/bss/factsheets/702/702SP.page
 - Ed Kyle

Perhaps I'm mis reading these articles but they seem to be saying Boeing can do a smaller sized comm sat (702SP) and may offer a version with electric orbit raising. That's not the same thing as a 702SP with electric orbit raising now.

The issue remains electric orbit raising means months passing through the Van Allan belts unless Boeing have come up with some really sneaky orbit raising trick (electric could include tethers but who knows?) or an ion drive with the thrust of at least a storable rocket (some kind of special highish thrust/lowish Isp mode?)

That also means 6 months without generating revenue. Either the electric orbit raising system has to be cheaper (probably a lot cheaper) to justify that delay or it offers substantially increased on orbit lifetime. I mean at least 1 year and preferably quite a bit more.

[RocketmanUS]

Time to recalibrate our thinking on this business.  This is happening. 
http://spaceflightnow.com/news/n1203/19boeing702sp/
http://www.boeing.com/boeing/defense-space/space/bss/factsheets/702/702SP.page
 - Ed Kyle

Perhaps I'm mis reading these articles but they seem to be saying Boeing can do a smaller sized comm sat (702SP) and may offer a version with electric orbit raising. That's not the same thing as a 702SP with electric orbit raising now.

The issue remains electric orbit raising means months passing through the Van Allan belts unless Boeing have come up with some really sneaky orbit raising trick (electric could include tethers but who knows?) or an ion drive with the thrust of at least a storable rocket (some kind of special highish thrust/lowish Isp mode?)

That also means 6 months without generating revenue. Either the electric orbit raising system has to be cheaper (probably a lot cheaper) to justify that delay or it offers substantially increased on orbit lifetime. I mean at least 1 year and preferably quite a bit more.

Payloads what on the ground now for a launch into space. With air launch it could be there already and on it's way to it's needed orbit powered by the slower but more propellant efficient SEP.

If payloads were launch into LEO then they could be picked up by a SEP tug and transferred to their needed orbit. Reusable tugs , could be fueled in LEO or high orbits, even Lunar orbits.

Payloads when launched to LEO first could be checked out and if there was a problem they might be able to then fix them in LEO. Also with a SEP tug they could bring down high orbit sats to LEO if needed.

Multiple launches a year would help keep the cost down. Other launchers could bring the Argon for the SEP up to a depot for when the SEP tug need the propellants at a later date.

Other thing is not all customers want to what for ride sharing or could even share a ride for their given payload(s). Air launch could offer a quicker launch option even if it might cost a little more.

[joek]

Time to recalibrate our thinking on this business.  This is happening. 
http://spaceflightnow.com/news/n1203/19boeing702sp/
http://www.boeing.com/boeing/defense-space/space/bss/factsheets/702/702SP.page
 - Ed Kyle

Perhaps I'm mis reading these articles but they seem to be saying Boeing can do a smaller sized comm sat (702SP) and may offer a version with electric orbit raising. That's not the same thing as a 702SP with electric orbit raising now.

Boeing offers them and have orders.  Four all-electric 702SPs have been sold and are being built with launch 2015 or 2016.  Likely more on the way; see: New Boeing Satellite Platform Drawing Lots of Customer Interest, SpaceNews, Mar 19, 2013

[edkyle99]

Time to recalibrate our thinking on this business.  This is happening. 
http://spaceflightnow.com/news/n1203/19boeing702sp/
http://www.boeing.com/boeing/defense-space/space/bss/factsheets/702/702SP.page
 - Ed Kyle

Perhaps I'm mis reading these articles but they seem to be saying Boeing can do a smaller sized comm sat (702SP) and may offer a version with electric orbit raising. That's not the same thing as a 702SP with electric orbit raising now.

Boeing offers them and have orders.  Four all-electric 702SPs have been sold and are being built with launch 2015 or 2016.  Likely more on the way; see: New Boeing Satellite Platform Drawing Lots of Customer Interest, SpaceNews, Mar 19, 2013

Most of the major satellite builders have announced similar "all electric" plans.  It stands to reason that Orbital, which already builds 3 tonne bipropellant GEO sats, is also considering plans along these lines.

 - Ed Kyle

[john smith 19]

Most of the major satellite builders have announced similar "all electric" plans.  It stands to reason that Orbital, which already builds 3 tonne bipropellant GEO sats, is also considering plans along these lines.

I've looked a little deeper and it seems the ATK Hall thrusters were quite an important part of the rescue of the defense satellite but what I'm also seeing is there is some concern about radiation damage to the solar panels during the process. Knocking down BOL efficiency suggests a lower EOL power level. So the question is does all the liquid propellant mass you saved by your 6 month orbit raising procedure get spent in bigger (or more expensive) PV panels to make good on the efficiency loss? That's now on top of how much more on orbit life does an all electric propulsion system give you.

No doubt the sat mfgs have models on this but I've a suspicion quite a few people will be holding back till they've seen what the on orbit performance of these early adopters is.

Does that leave still leave a big enough market for Stratolaunch to chase or can they wait for the comm sat market to catch up and be ready to launch on their LV? Assuming it launches (optimistically) start of Q414 its maybe Apr 2015 before its on orbit, then its 2-21/2 years after that minimum before other operators will want to launch (assuming the like the BOL results immediately).

So could Stratolaunch be ready to launch a totally new launch system by April 2017-sep 2017? Given Stratolaunch annouced in dec 2011 that's 5-6 years to be ready for this potential crop of low(ish) mass comm sat orders.

The $64m question?  Can they do it? It sounds kind of tight for a new aircraft * new 2 stage LV, which suggest plenty of "unknown unknowns" to find.

[yg1968]

STRATOLAUNCH ANNOUNCES PARTNERSHIP WITH ORBITAL SCIENCES TO DESIGN, ASSEMBLE, INTEGRATE AND TEST THE AIR LAUNCH VEHICLE

HUNTSVILLE, AL, June 3, 2013- Space technology leader Orbital Sciences Corporation has joined Stratolaunch Systems team to design, build, and operate Stratolaunch's redesigned air launch rocket system. Orbital's involvement is key in realizing Stratolaunch System's vision to provide orbital access with greater safety, cost effectiveness and flexibility. The agreement was finalized after a nine-month research period in which Stratolaunch charged Orbital with developing a comprehensive operational concept for its air-launch system, including the unique design of the rocket and operational processes and procedures that will need to be in place to operate the system. Going forward, Orbital will be responsible for the program's overall systems engineering, as well as the development, production, integration, test, and operations of the air launch vehicle and related support systems.

Orbital develops and manufactures small- and medium-class rockets and space systems for commercial, military, and civil government customers. The company's primary products are satellites and launch vehicles, including low-earth orbit, geosynchronous earth orbit and planetary exploration spacecraft for communications, remote sensing, scientific and defense missions; human-related space systems for Earth-orbit, lunar and other missions; ground- and air-launched rockets that deliver satellites into orbit; and missile defense systems that are used as interceptor and target vehicles.

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

[yg1968]

Here is the full press release:

http://www.parabolicarc.com/2013/06/03/stratolaunch-formalizes-orbital-sciences-partnership/

The Stratolaunch ALV system will be capable of launching government and commercial payloads up to 15,000 lbs. range to low-Earth orbit (LEO) and smaller payloads to geostationary transfer orbit (GTO).

This is new. It look like the payload capacity went up to 15,000 pounds. It was 13,500 pounds before.

[FutureSpaceTourist]

Alan Boyle also has a piece about it: http://cosmiclog.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/06/03/18727669-stratolaunch-firms-up-its-relationship-with-orbital-for-air-launch-system?lite

[john smith 19]

Alan Boyle also has a piece about it: http://cosmiclog.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/06/03/18727669-stratolaunch-firms-up-its-relationship-with-orbital-for-air-launch-system?lite

Interestingly this puts their IOC data just a little after the time I thought comm sat operators would be evaluating and placing orders for all electric sats that would take a slow route through the Van Allan belts.


So 4 1/4 years to a)Build (by some standards) the worlds biggest aircraft and b)Build a new 3 stage rocket (2 solid and 1 liquid) to hang on it.

Would anyone not characterize that schedule as "challenging"?

[RanulfC]

Would anyone not characterize that schedule as "challenging"?

No really... The CHALLENGING part was putting the bathroom in the other fuselage and making it NOT look like you're just messing with the flight crew!

Randy

[RanulfC]

Going to post this here and in the L2 section as well. I don't know if anyone recalls a 2005 concept called "Configurable Air Transport Systems" or CATS by Mike Snead, but here's a link to the paper:
http://mikesnead.net/resources/cat/tech_paper_configurable_air_transport.pdf

The picture on page 15 always had me thinking of three C-130 sized rockets instead of cargo pods

I bring it up because there is currently a European repeat of the idea called "Clip-Air" which ties the entire air-cargo system into the railroad system. (Which for Europe makes a lot of sense) See the concept here:
http://clipair.epfl.ch/

If anyone happens to be going to the Paris Airshow they will have a booth and one might inquire if they are at all inclined in the air-launch direction

Applicability here is I have always suspected something like this as a "secondary" objective to the StratoLaunch business plan because I know both the military and airlines are "interested" in seeing a demonstration of such a system along with the "Blended-Wing-Body" aircraft but in either case actual adoption of the system will require major changes in operations and facilities.

Just a thought...

Randy