Posted on 05/31/2017 10:21:51 PM PDT by BenLurkin
The colossal Stratolaunch carrier plane rolled out of its hangar at the Mojave Air and Space Port in Mojave, California, today (May 31) to undergo fueling tests. It's the first public look at the full craft —which is designed to launch rockets into orbit from the sky — since construction began.
"We're excited to announce that Stratolaunch aircraft has reached a major milestone in its journey toward providing convenient, reliable, and routine access to low-Earth orbit," Stratolaunch Systems Corp. CEO Jean Floyd said in a statement. "This marks the completion of the initial aircraft-construction phase and the beginning of the aircraft ground- and flight-testing phase.
The Stratolaunch carrier plane is designed to launch rockets into orbit from an altitude of 30,000 feet (9,100 meters). Initially, the plane will carry a single Pegasus XL rocket built by Orbital ATK, but the craft will eventually be able to carry up to three of those boosters simultaneously, Floyd said.
(Excerpt) Read more at space.com ...
Would expect it to have more lift surface.
Doesn’t even look like it fits in that hangar.
Conjoined twins. They share a wing. Like conjoined chickens.
Just pray the pilot in the port and starboard cockpits do not get into an argument about which way to turn the plane.
So what exactly is the purpose of carrying a rocket up to 30,000 feet and launching it? I can’t believe it’s any safer or cheaper than launching from the ground. This whole project just seems...weird.
>> It seems the plane will serve as a reusable first-stage launcher.
Yeah, I read the story and went to the Stratolaunch web site, but it all just doesn’t make much sense logistically. I’m not seeing the value here.
Damned. A 2017 souped up P-38 Lightning. Gotta get me one of these.
There are a total of 28 tires on this plane. I would be concerned that one misalignment on one side of the plane would pull away from the other half and snap the middle wing structure.
Yeah, 60,000 ft would have been something. I suppose Spy sattelites go at about 150,000 ft, so this carries it 20% the way up using atmospheric oxygen
I am not an engineer, but I would think the first 30,000 feet are probably the most expensive.
That could well be the answer I was looking for. I don’t know either. But all the logistics of getting a successful launch in the air versus on the ground, just seems mind boggling that it could be any easier or less expensive. I’m looking forward to learning more. Maybe I should call into the Startalk radio show/podcast or a similar one. Maybe a rocketry website can help.
Paul.Allen has a bit of Howard Hughes in him, hopefully not the mentality I’ll part.
Stratolaunch’s reusability and air-launch capabilities enable us to take an airport-style approach to operations for launch services. Stratolaunch will take off from a runway, rather than a logistically vulnerable fixed range, which allows us to avoid hazards such as inclement weather, airborne traffic and heavy marine activity. Stratolaunch’s airborne launch platform significantly reduces the risk of costly delays or cancellations.
Another factor that contributes to the expense associated with satellites is the cost of putting one into orbit. It is estimated that a single satellite launch can range in cost from a low of about $50 million to a high of about $400 million. Launching a space shuttle mission can easily cost $500 million dollars, although one mission is capable of carrying multiple satellites and send them into orbit.
http://www.globalcomsatphone.com/hughesnet/satellite/costs.html
https://www.quora.com/How-much-does-it-cost-to-set-up-and-launch-a-communications-satellite
There is some food for thought. Then consider they can air-launch 3 of them on a single flight. When looking at the size and cost of a throw away booster that is now eliminated. Don’t have the costs on the SpaceX reusable but consider much of that would be no longer needed. In the images on the Stratolaunch site, the rockets look to be just bigger derivatives of cruise missiles.
As a former NASA engineer, I can explain.
1) A major boost from air-launching orbital rockets is lower atmospheric pressure. At 30,000 feet, you are above 75% of the atmosphere. You can generally get away with using efficient, high expansion rocket motors optimized for vacuum, such as the RL-10 or the NK-43, instead of a sea-level optimized engine, which are less efficient and more difficult to build and maintain.
2) Rapid re-usability of the launch site. If your rocket, launching vertically from a standard launch pad, is firing exhaust downward at about 6700 MPH, it requires substantial engineering to avoid damaging your launch pad (massive water sprays and exhaust redirection channels), and often it requires days (or weeks) of maintenance before the launch pad can be used again. If your rocket doesn’t rise quickly enough, it can also ‘cook’ the bottom of the rocket in the reflected exhaust. Air launch eliminates this problem completely.
3) First orbit rendezvous - If you are trying to launch your match the orbital inclination and trajectory of an existing satellite (e.x. the ISS), air-launch makes it extremely simple to move your ‘launch’ point to any needed spot to match orbits immediately. Launching from a fixed ground pad (e.x. KSC) gives you narrow launch windows that still require many orbits and a fuel-wasting course correction to achieve rendezvous.
There are other benefits, but I need to get back to work.
I can see the use of this vehicle driving all sorts of design points on the space vehicle, replacing fuel storage space with mission specific equipment.
Probably even can make the structure of the space craft lighter as it doesn't have to withstand the rigors of the launch.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.