Stratolaunch, a new and affordable space launch system.

Point out news stories, on the net or in mainstream media, related to polywell fusion.

Moderators: tonybarry, MSimon

Giorgio
Posts: 3061
Joined: Wed Oct 07, 2009 6:15 pm
Location: China, Italy

Stratolaunch, a new and affordable space launch system.

Post by Giorgio »

From NBF:
http://nextbigfuture.com/2011/12/paul-a ... n-are.html
Paul Allen, Spacex and Burt Rutan are teaming up for Stratolaunch
Cosmiclog MSNBC - software billionaire Paul Allen and aerospace guru Burt Rutan are teaming up with SpaceX and other top-flight rocketeers to create an air-launched orbital delivery system. They say the venture will require the construction of the largest aircraft ever flown.

The air-launch system is made up of four primary elements: a carrier aircraft, a multi-stage booster, a mating and integration system, and an orbital payload. Initial efforts will focus on unmanned payloads; however, human flights will follow as safety, reliability, and operability are demonstrated.

The carrier aircraft, built by Scaled Composites, weighs more than 1.2 million pounds and has a wingspan of 385 feet – greater than the length of a football field. Using six 747 engines, the carrier aircraft will be the largest aircraft ever constructed. The air-launch system requires a takeoff and landing runway that is, at minimum, 12,000 feet long. The carrier aircraft can fly over 1,300 nautical miles to reach an optimal launch point.
Lot more of interesting stuff here:
http://stratolaunchsystems.com/presskit.html

Giorgio
Posts: 3061
Joined: Wed Oct 07, 2009 6:15 pm
Location: China, Italy

Post by Giorgio »


MSimon
Posts: 14334
Joined: Mon Jul 16, 2007 7:37 pm
Location: Rockford, Illinois
Contact:

Post by MSimon »

Very nice.
Engineering is the art of making what you want from what you can get at a profit.

Luzr
Posts: 269
Joined: Sun Nov 22, 2009 8:23 pm

Post by Luzr »

I do not know. It looks cool, but I remember reading cost analysis by SpaceX stating that these combined "air breathing winged first stage then rocket" are not really very effective. That airplane has little advantage if you need to get orbital velocity....

(SpaceShip is different story, as its goal was to get high, not orbital...)

TheRadicalModerate
Posts: 145
Joined: Thu Oct 04, 2007 4:19 pm
Location: Austin, TX
Contact:

Post by TheRadicalModerate »

Luzr wrote:I do not know. It looks cool, but I remember reading cost analysis by SpaceX stating that these combined "air breathing winged first stage then rocket" are not really very effective.
Their argument seems to be that airstrip ops are a lot faster and cheaper to turn around than launch pad ops. They're also claiming less sensitivity to weather, and a much wider choice of orbital geometries.

Not sure I buy it either, but it's nice to see serious companies with a design centered on launching every day, not every month (or, in the case of SLS, maybe every year or so).

Skipjack
Posts: 6805
Joined: Sun Sep 28, 2008 2:29 pm

Post by Skipjack »

I get the added flexibility and independence, but I dont see this sufficiently reducing the launch cost with a sufficient amount of launches a year, to justify the development and maintenance cost of such a gigantic airplane. That is unless they have secondary uses for this plane in mind, which there might very well be plenty of. It will be interesting to see how this will pan out.
I can also see this harmonizing with SpaceX plans of doing VTOL of their first stage. They might save the fuel for turning arround the stage by simply taking the plane up range of the landing site and launching the rocket from there.

TheRadicalModerate
Posts: 145
Joined: Thu Oct 04, 2007 4:19 pm
Location: Austin, TX
Contact:

Post by TheRadicalModerate »

The other thing they're doing is leveraging a lot of other proven or semi-proven components. Scaled Composites is doing the aircraft (presumably leveraging some of the White Knight tech), they're using off-the-shelf turbofans, and they're buying SpaceX motors, if not boosters.

Frankly, the thing that was most exciting about this is that it's an early indication that we might have started to hit the knee in the curve on proven components. When that happens, the cost for new innovation plummets.

I have to admit I was a bit skeptical about the Obama administrations privatization efforts with NASA, but there's been more movement in the last year than in the previous ten. Now if we could just shoot the friggin' SLS program in the head, we might actually get manned missions out of LEO at some point in the next ten years...

Giorgio
Posts: 3061
Joined: Wed Oct 07, 2009 6:15 pm
Location: China, Italy

Post by Giorgio »

I was also considering the effective saving in costs from operating from a field versus a launch pad, but as soon as I saw the specs of that plane I forgot about silly economic calculations! :D

They completely conquered me with that beast. It will make the Antonov AN-225 look small!
Just build it quickly, I want to see it.

Skipjack
Posts: 6805
Joined: Sun Sep 28, 2008 2:29 pm

Post by Skipjack »

I have to admit I was a bit skeptical about the Obama administrations privatization efforts with NASA
Why? It was the best thing to do. Should have done that 10 years ago.

MSimon
Posts: 14334
Joined: Mon Jul 16, 2007 7:37 pm
Location: Rockford, Illinois
Contact:

Post by MSimon »

Skipjack wrote:
I have to admit I was a bit skeptical about the Obama administrations privatization efforts with NASA
Why? It was the best thing to do. Should have done that 10 years ago.
He needs the money for his welfare programs. It makes perfect sense.
Engineering is the art of making what you want from what you can get at a profit.

Skipjack
Posts: 6805
Joined: Sun Sep 28, 2008 2:29 pm

Post by Skipjack »

He needs the money for his welfare programs. It makes perfect sense.
He also needs it pay back all the debt the US has...
Either way, going commercial makes sense, no matter how you look at it. The administrations original plan was VERY good and VERY libertarian. Unfortunately some republicans and also some dems banded together to torpedo it in order to keep big wasteful government spending contracts with the big defense companies in their states. But as usual, government spending is not considered wasteful if it goes to defense contractors, or so it seems.

MSimon
Posts: 14334
Joined: Mon Jul 16, 2007 7:37 pm
Location: Rockford, Illinois
Contact:

Post by MSimon »

Skipjack wrote:
He needs the money for his welfare programs. It makes perfect sense.
He also needs it pay back all the debt the US has...
Either way, going commercial makes sense, no matter how you look at it. The administrations original plan was VERY good and VERY libertarian. Unfortunately some republicans and also some dems banded together to torpedo it in order to keep big wasteful government spending contracts with the big defense companies in their states. But as usual, government spending is not considered wasteful if it goes to defense contractors, or so it seems.
I'm getting tired of being a Republican. I'm considering going back to being a Libertarian. Or at least a more libertarian Republican.
Engineering is the art of making what you want from what you can get at a profit.

Skipjack
Posts: 6805
Joined: Sun Sep 28, 2008 2:29 pm

Post by Skipjack »

I am all for libertarian, where it makes sense. Commercial crew did make sense. Fixed cost and competition for LEO access makes sense.
It was really weird to see the oh so anti government spending republicans completely forget all their principles when they saw the funding for certain companies in their states endangered. Never before has it been so obvious to me how politics work and how little politicians really care about the actual matter they are talking about. It made me look not only at US politics very differently, but also my own (country). It is all about the pork! For all of them! They just differ in what lobby they support. It disgusts me!

MSimon
Posts: 14334
Joined: Mon Jul 16, 2007 7:37 pm
Location: Rockford, Illinois
Contact:

Post by MSimon »

Skipjack wrote:I am all for libertarian, where it makes sense. Commercial crew did make sense. Fixed cost and competition for LEO access makes sense.
It was really weird to see the oh so anti government spending republicans completely forget all their principles when they saw the funding for certain companies in their states endangered. Never before has it been so obvious to me how politics work and how little politicians really care about the actual matter they are talking about. It made me look not only at US politics very differently, but also my own (country). It is all about the pork! For all of them! They just differ in what lobby they support. It disgusts me!
You have to be very careful about these politicos - sometimes they lie. That is the real territory. Or as my grandpappy used to say, "They are ALL crooks."

That is why you can't go a bit by what they say. For instance "marijuana is the devils weed" - who pays for that message? The pharma and alcohol lobbies because it competes with them.

Example: pot use by kids up - alcohol use down:

viewtopic.php?t=3455

IMO the only answer is MUCH smaller government.
Engineering is the art of making what you want from what you can get at a profit.

D Tibbets
Posts: 2775
Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2008 6:52 am

Post by D Tibbets »

Having a plane as the first stage may have sufficient benefits. Orbital Science has used a plane for years (are they still?). Also, location has a lot of importance- thus Sea Launch (are they still in busness?).
The biggest factor may be Burt Rutan's contribution. The work on the carrier aircraft for Space Ship Two, may be be forcing some reevaluation of the costs and capabilities of such systems.

Dan Tibbets
To error is human... and I'm very human.

Post Reply