http://www.stratolaunch.com/ The new launch system has several elements. First, it has a giant carrier aircraft that will be built by Rutan's Scaled Composites. Second, it will have a multistage booster made by Elon Musk's SpaceX. And finally, it will have "a state-of-the-art mating and integration system allowing the carrier aircraft to safely carry a booster weighing up to 490,000 pounds." That element will be manufactured by Dynetics. In a statement today, the company outlined its plans: Stratolaunch Systems will bring airport-like operations to the launch of commercial and government payloads and, eventually, human missions. Plans call for a first flight within five years. The air-launch-to-orbit system will mean lower costs, greater safety, and more flexibility and responsiveness than is possible today with ground-based systems. Stratolaunch's quick turnaround between launches will enable new orbital missions as well as break the logjam of missions queued up for launch facilities and a chance at space. Rutan, who has joined Stratolaunch Systems as a board member, said he was thrilled to be back working with Allen. "Paul and I pioneered private space travel with SpaceShipOne, which led to Virgin Galactic's commercial suborbital SpaceShipTwo Program. The Stratolaunch carrier aircraft will truly be massive. It is expected to have a wingspan of 380 feet--longer than a football field. As Rutan put it during the press conference, "You should never show this airplane, or a model of it, without right next to it, showing a plane that we know how big it is, like a little 747." A 12,000-foot runway The carrier aircraft will actually utilize some of Boeing's most famous plane--six 747 engines will power it. But because it will have a takeoff weight of more than 1.2 million pounds, it needs a runway at least 12,000 feet long in order to get off the ground. It's likely, Stratolaunch says, that the aircraft will need to take off from a place like Kennedy Space Center. But the manufacture of the Stratolaunch system will take place at the Mojave Air and Space Port, in Mojave, Calif. That is where Rutan's Scaled Composites is located, as well as the factory where Richard Branson's Virgin Galactic will be making its SpaceShipTwo rocket and WhiteKnightTwo carrier aircraft. Stratolaunch said that its new system will be capable of taking passengers into low-Earth orbit, but its initial efforts are expected to be focused on cargo. "Human flights," the company said in its announcement, "will follow after safety, reliability, and operability are demonstrated." Clearly, though, it will be years before the system takes flight. Stratolauch said that it should be at least five years before the first flight. But then, the project could be capable of powering the dreams of future space enthusiasts. "We have plenty and many challenges ahead of us," said Allen at the press conference today. "But by the end of the decade...Stratolaunch will be putting spacecraft into orbit [and will] give tomorrow's children something to search for in the night sky." Image Unavailable, Please Login
Option 1. Say "Ha ha. Good one Spasso... What? ...It's for real?" Option 2. "But what will the Russians response be?" Option 3. "Wow. Just wow."
Not sure what the thinking behind this approach is. Gaining 50,000 ft of altitude doesn't reduce the amount of fuel to get to space by very much. You need velocity and the speed of the stratolauncher is peanuts compared to orbital velocities.
Real enough to be in the local news. Paul Allen and Burt Rutan have their names on it. http://www.komonews.com/news/local/Allen-building-plane-to-zip-people-cargo-into-orbit-135521853.html National, Fox, http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2011/12/13/microsoft-founder-announces-spaceflight-company-promises-airport-like/ Aviation Week, http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story_channel.jsp?channel=space&id=news/awx/2011/12/13/awx_12_13_2011_p0-405946.xml&headline=Stratolaunch%20Aims%20to%20Break%20Affordability%20Barrier
Rutan said after SpaceShip One that getting to orbit was his next goal. I think this is how it happens.
The same thinking that put Spaceship One in orbit, just on a larger scale. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SpaceShipOne I am guessing they are pretty sure it is cheaper and easier than strapping on solid Rocket Boosters and dead lifting from ground zero. Burt Rutan is no idiot and doesn't go off half-cocked.
Option 4. "That thing's too big to fly." My brother in law went up four times in the shuttle. The acceleration during the last minute before MECO is really something. The idea here of course is the launch vehicle is much lighter. The fuel plus the vehicle needed are both less. Plus there is the flexibility of picking your point in time and space. Option 5. "I love flying, but that thing gives me the Heebie Geebies."
The thinking has already been proven with the earlier space probe. All the launched vehicle has to do is to accelerate to speed and climb. Overcoming 50,000 of gravity has been mostly been accomplished and the vehicle is already in rarified air thus it's drag is minimized. Size? There is nothing too big to fly. The bigger the vehicle is, the better they fly. We have the power in the jet engines, and all the lifting surfaces that can lift 2 million pounds or more.Burt Ruttan knows what he is doing and always has. Piece of Cake.
I listened to a bit of the press conference, and the interesting idea is that it's more efficient to lift the vehicle using turbofan engines, which can breathe oxygen from the atmosphere, where there is oxygen (lower altitudes). You don't need to carry the oxygen with you in the rocket for that phase of flight-- meaning less fuel, and more mass to orbit. As others have pointed out, Burt Rutan is a genius. I say, kudos to Paul Allen for doing something like this! I always thought SpaceShip One was one of his best investments-- his buddy Chuck Simonyi spent $25 million to go into space each time, Paul Allen spent $20 million and got an entire space program! (And $5 million or more back, to boot!). Apparently Paul must agree...
Chatting with Spasso and we remembered that a current 747 can lift 1.5 million pounds with just four engines and a helluva lot less wing and can get it almost as high as the new big venture. Like I said, Piece of Cake.
I can imagine it going higher and faster with some rocket power of it's own besides the payload. I would want it as close to the center as possible though. Yaw would be very scary.
Huh??? The idea is to get it up there WITHOUT using rockets. Why would you need to get it up there faster???? Why would you use an asymmetric rocket mount?
I have a question on the design. Would love to hear Bob's (and all you other folks with more knowledge than me!) thoughts on this..... The picture shows twin fuselages that look similar in size to a 747 fuselage. Why are these necessary? Those represent a huge amount of frontal area and surface area (and thus drag) that I don't see a justification for. The only payload is the rocket in the middle, so it's not like they need a big, cavernous fuselage to carry cargo or people. I don't think the fuselages would need to have that big of a cross sectional area for structural strength and rigidity. Why not just build two very thin booms to support the tail surfaces and have a small pilots cabin on the front of one of them?
My first thoughts on why two fuselages. 1) IIRC Rutan's wing design precludes the use of a "wet wing", meaning, the entire wing is a monocoque structure with no voids, giving the strongest structure for the least amount of weight. Therefore, the fuel would need to be stored in the fuselage sections. 2) The fuselage sections tie everything together and offer structural stability/ rigidity that is required to support a 500,000 lb booster. (Obviously the support needs to be on either side of the booster) They would also house the systems required to run six turbo fan engines, hydraulics, avionics and some REALLY big landing gear to support over one million pounds..
Neat idea, but PA has had his failures, too. OTOH, if we don't try it, we'll never know. And, if he's willing to back it, good on him. The closest I've been to space is the Concorde, and I'd be interested in one day being able to get there. It's getting more realistic and affordable. I'm not in a position to shell over $25MM to go up in a Russian launch vehicle, but perhaps this will be a step towards more commercial space operations. CW
I agree with Spasso. Structural depth and width is paramount in maintaining structural stability and when you have dynamic flight loads as large as those in this vehicle , you have to have muscle. Just off the top of my head I'm guessing a fuel load of maybe 2 times or more of the 747 since they aren't shooting for extended range and then all the equipment and systems have to have space and supporting sources. The weight of the space vehicle and engines and everything else under and forward of the wing has to have a long enough tail arm and some strong tail power to maintain directional control and pitch stability. Then you have flutter to tame,etc. I think that the only time that you would want a thin small diameter tube would be in a fishing pole and you know how they act when you wiggle them. I'm not an expert designer but those are my thoughts.
We think 747 because 1. We are led to believe it is quite large. It is. 2. We are told it uses six 747 engines. 3. It appears to have a flight deck that reminds us of a 747. Viewing the images closer we can see that the fuselage(s) appear to be somewhat slab sided compared to a 747. The reason to use a secondary power like rockets before using the power contained in the orbital vehicle is the same reason for this aircraft. It is also the same reason the shuttle had SRBs. Rather than have rockets on the aircraft, I would have them on a secondary system. One which would be removed from the aircraft at altitude and prior to the ignition of the orbital vehicles engines or rockets. The turbofans will have done their work and run out of effectiveness. I would detach a "rocket sled" carrying the payload. Climb to higher altitude and speed and detach. It could be construed as a first stage but I see it differently. Also remember that the aircraft is going to carry a lot of fuel in all probability. The velocity of the earth at the equator is only 1,000 MPH but it is probably worth remembering. As I eluded to previously, yaw could be a scary thing. Especially with the type of forces that could be in play here. Honestly though, at the end of the day, I agree with Bob. Piece of cake. I was just joking about being too big to fly. It will be awesome.
If an SLS is used it can be an autonomous or remotely piloted vehicle. The enemy is drag. The great velocity gains are to be had when resistance nears zero. I wouldn't try to do any more with the primary aircraft. Too much drag.
The turbofans will get the plane to 50k feet much and higher, the proposed launch altitude. There's no reason to use rockets to get it to altitude. Just adds huge complications and $$$$$. Not necessarily that much fuel, it's a short flight, no distance to speak of and there's little fuel used on the 'return'. Yes, you ALUDED to yaw, but that is not an issue anymore than normal. The Russian Mirya also has six huge turbofans. Also, re: the 747 reference, it will use the 747 flight deck, systems, landing gear and engines. Landing gear loads on landing will be greatly reduced... no rocket. FWIW: Weight: From wiki - Stratolaunch at 1.2mil lb. 747 has a MTOW of just under 1mil lb. Airbus A380 is more, about 1.3mil lb. Mirya has a MTOW of even more, 1.32mil lb. Shoot, since a big part of our space program is leasing seats/space from the Russians, why not just put the rocket on the roof of the Mirya???
wow, I was reading the first posts thinking cool some new aeronautical concept, just to see the thread started in 2011! awesome, I wonder how it matches up to the original concept.
That was my first thought. I would have thought it would be better to bridge the horizontal stabilizer. Must be a reason the didn't But lot of torsional stress possible in that middle wing section.
