Stratolaunch, a new and affordable space launch system.

GIThruster · Post by **GIThruster** » Fri Dec 16, 2011 2:31 am

The trouble as I see it is they're locked into a specific portion of the market with no way to grow past their initial share. They won't ever add capability to launch much larger payloads which is why SpaceX can build the boosters--they'll never be in competition. They likewise have to launch for significantly less than a Falcon 9, and if Musk ever does get around to reusing 1st and 2nd stages, that will drive Falcon 9 costs down significantly.

I'm not sure I'd want to put my money in. They must think they can make a lot of money with the Delta 2 sized market, but what if when the Falcon 9 continues to prove it's reliability, the Delta 2 portion of the market disappears in favor of larger payloads?

Otherwise though, it's cool that Rutan finally has his dream of launching to orbit. He's been committed to this for a long time. Likewise, good to see Mike Griffin involved. I have little doubt this team can pull off what they intend. Lets just hope the market supports their intentions a decade from now.

Maui · Post by **Maui** » Fri Dec 16, 2011 2:40 am

GIThruster wrote:The trouble as I see it is they're locked into a specific portion of the market with no way to grow past their initial share.... They likewise have to launch for significantly less than a Falcon 9

May be why their marketing seems to focus more on flexibility than cost. Even if in the end both systems are the same price, if stratolaunch gives you a much better chance to launch on the day you want to, it seems like that's a clear advantage.

GIThruster · Post by **GIThruster** » Fri Dec 16, 2011 2:50 am

That's true, and operating from Mojave or anywhere else that has large enough a runway makes it possible to launch very, very often. They don't really need more than a single aircraft. Still, if they don't have market to support a very frequent launch schedule, its hard to see how they'll compete.

Likewise, seems to me a very difficult position to be in, relying upon SpaceX for the rocket. If SpaceX raises the price for the booster, they can run StratoLaunch out of the market with a single hand wave.

I think it was Gary Hudson who lamented the reliance upon single source for boosters and said that was why they did their own for AirLaunch rather than buy from ATK. Solids would have done the job but I think Gary was wary of placing himself at the mercy of a corporate entity.

Skipjack · Post by **Skipjack** » Fri Dec 16, 2011 7:23 am

Likewise, seems to me a very difficult position to be in, relying upon SpaceX for the rocket. If SpaceX raises the price for the booster, they can run StratoLaunch out of the market with a single hand wave.

I read that they can support other boosters than those by SpaceX. So they are not reliant on them as a sole source provider.
I also want to point out, that Elon Musk and Paul Allan share the same vision of lowering the cost of access to space (over making maximum profit). This I believe is the main reason they sided with SpaceX.

GIThruster · Post by **GIThruster** » Fri Dec 16, 2011 11:26 am

I would personally trust Musk, but the day he's gone the whole enterprise is up for grabs.

I don't know of any boosters as small as this Falcon 4-5 derivative except the tiny air launch like Pegasus and that's certainly not going to loft people. Any idea where you read they had a second supplier?

Skipjack · Post by **Skipjack** » Fri Dec 16, 2011 5:26 pm

Wouldnt the taurus work for it? I would have to read up on it.

GIThruster · Post by **GIThruster** » Fri Dec 16, 2011 6:45 pm

I wouldn't think so. The entire Taurus/Antares lifts half what the Strato is designed to and Strato uses 2 stages. I can't imagine replacing them with the Antares and getting the same performance. Also, the 2nd stage of Taurus/Antares is solid. Can't just put people aboard that without shaking their brains to mush. You also can't stop and restart the way the SpaceX core can and the SpaceX core is amazingly light . Worst is though, the Antares uses all three methods which seems to me a logistics and pricing nightmare: Kero for the first stage, solid for the second and hypergolics for the third. So you have all the troubles of cryogenics even though you have kero, all the limitations of solids even though 2 stages are not, etc. Seems like a host of bad choices, probably left over from the original intent to use decommissioned ICBM's. I would not expect much from the Antares. By contrast, whatever falcon 4-5 derivative flies, it will be efficient to service on the ground and while flying. There really isn't a close comparison performer--not even Zenit--because of the efficiency of the Merlins.

I'd be very surprised if there were any drop-in replacement for the booster SpaceX is supposed to supply.

Skipjack · Post by **Skipjack** » Fri Dec 16, 2011 6:50 pm

Ok, for people there wont be much of an alternative to SpaceX for now, but that is not even a given market for Stratolaunch yet. Tehy are actually going to focus on cargo first and for that I see plenty of potential alternatives.

pfrit · Post by **pfrit** » Sat Dec 17, 2011 3:59 pm

One thing to consider is that an airplane's cost is dominated by fuel costs and a rocket never is. A rocket is dominated by material and personnel costs. By moving more of the cost to fuel rather than to material you are moving towards the desired goal of having space access driven by fuel costs. If they can make a truely reusable rocket with a 5000 hour engine, then they would be fuel cost driven and that would be very, very good. The proper model for space access right now is disposable bridges. You want the model to be airlines. Just my 2 cents.