Stratolaunch and Orbital - The Height of Air Launch

[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