Stratolaunch and Orbital - The Height of Air Launch

[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?