Stratolaunch

Status
Not open for further replies.
Some information indicating that Scaled was considering using 747s for the Stratolaunch effort seems to be confirmed. A look at the civil register shows that Scaled Composites acquired two Boeing 747-422 (former United Airlines) aircraft: N196UA on March 8, and N198UA on April 14. Both aircraft were built in 1997.

http://www.aircraftone.com/search.asp?pg=2&type=rn&criteria=Scaled+Composites&gid=82DE1B9D-9B4A-46DF-98F0-F223BCBF2696&rc=13&prevpage=1
 
Byeman said:
That didn't confirm it.

Fair enough. They could be just snatching engines and stuff OR they could decide to use the fuselages too. It's too early to tell, but I'm tempted to believe that from a financial point of view, a proof-of-concept vehicle would be much less costly to do by joining two proven existing fuselages instead of building two unproven ones from scratch.
 
The 747 fuselage is built for a low wing, which would make it difficult to fit the rocket underneath. They need a high wing.
 
In principle they could connect 2 747 fuselages with a straight wing segment and carry the rocket on *top*. Separation would be a bit terrifying, but it'd be possible. Also, they could have a "gull wing" center section that bows upwards. Heavy and complex, but doable.
 
Orionblamblam said:
Also, they could have a "gull wing" center section that bows upwards. Heavy and complex, but doable.

Yeah, that was indeed a solution studied by Myasishchev on their 3M2 and AKC projects. But the wing was high-rooted already.
 
Stratolaunch and SpaceX are splitting up.

http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/stratolaunch-and-spacex-part-ways-379516/
 
We'll have to see what happens next. On the one hand, you can always find another contractor if you pay them enough. But on the other hand, I suspect that building an air-launched rocket that big is going to be a really tough challenge. Imagine all the propellant sloshing issues. And I have always suspected that they would have a hard time getting an airworthiness certificate for the aircraft because of what is likely to happen if they lose an engine during the takeoff roll with a fully loaded aircraft and rocket--it just careens down the runway and creates a very big explosion.

The aircraft would be cool, but I've never expected this thing to go anywhere.
 
blackstar said:
... And I have always suspected that they would have a hard time getting an airworthiness certificate for the aircraft because of what is likely to happen...

The cool thing about flying strange aircraft in the US is that they won't need a full airworthiness certificate. They can get an experimental flight permit with some restrictions - like making sure you only kill company employees when it blows up after an engine failure.
 
Bill Walker said:
blackstar said:
... And I have always suspected that they would have a hard time getting an airworthiness certificate for the aircraft because of what is likely to happen...

The cool thing about flying strange aircraft in the US is that they won't need a full airworthiness certificate. They can get an experimental flight permit with some restrictions - like making sure you only kill company employees when it blows up after an engine failure.

But how likely is the FAA going to simply give them a pass for carrying around thousands of pounds of rocket fuel?
 
blackstar said:
We'll have to see what happens next. On the one hand, you can always find another contractor if you pay them enough. But on the other hand, I suspect that building an air-launched rocket that big is going to be a really tough challenge.

If you read the article, it says they're talking to Orbital Sciences, which has been using the Pegasus winged air-launched rocket for years now. And propellant sloshing issues are familiar territory for anyone who's built a rocket engine that needs to be started in 0 G.

Sure, it's a challenge, but it seems to me they're talking to the right people.
 
Hobbes said:
blackstar said:
We'll have to see what happens next. On the one hand, you can always find another contractor if you pay them enough. But on the other hand, I suspect that building an air-launched rocket that big is going to be a really tough challenge.

If you read the article, it says they're talking to Orbital Sciences, which has been using the Pegasus winged air-launched rocket for years now. And propellant sloshing issues are familiar territory for anyone who's built a rocket engine that needs to be started in 0 G.

Sure, it's a challenge, but it seems to me they're talking to the right people.

Covered by the second sentence I wrote above--anybody will work, even on something stupid, if you offer them enough money.

As for propellant sloshing, note that Pegasus doesn't have to deal with this. And there's a big difference between zero g and what a very large rocket dropped from a very large aircraft would experience. Indeed, it might experience negative gees (i.e. with the fuel flowing away from the engine).
 
blackstar said:
But how likely is the FAA going to simply give them a pass for carrying around thousands of pounds of rocket fuel?

This is truly the least of their problems. The FAA, by explicit mandate, could care less if you blow yourself up. They just want to make sure you don't blow anybody else up. This is easily done by testing over unpopulated regions in the American SW. Like just east of Mojave, Palmdale and Edwards for instance. And that is why you find such interesting activities being carried out at Mojave, Palmdale and Edwards.
 
Some more:

http://www.spacenews.com/article/orbital-science-replaces-spacex-on-stratolaunch-project#.ULkvf4UXFFR

"“We agreed with SpaceX that to meet our design requirements, the existing Falcon 9 architecture would require significant structural modifications to incorporate a fin/chine and to be carried horizontally,” Wentz said. “As we studied the design, it became apparent that SpaceX would have to make significant modifications to their manufacturing process to accommodate our configuration, which would have a pronounced effect on their business model.”"
 
And it gets a new design. . .


sl_zps87fcdefc.jpg


http://www.aviationweek.com/Blogs.aspx?plckBlogId=Blog:04ce340e-4b63-4d23-9695-d49ab661f385&plckPostId=Blog:04ce340e-4b63-4d23-9695-d49ab661f385Post:b91c04c7-9dfc-465b-93b9-1bf529c0ca92
 
Yeah, I always expected that, and I think they said that the early artwork was provisional and that they were NOT going to use the 747 fuselages. Makes sense. The 747 fuselage had much more internal volume than they require, so they could save a lot of mass with a new one (or two).

My view is that I that the airplane will probably fly but the rocket probably won't. And it's hard to see how this is going to be any cheaper than SpaceX. I think this is a rich guy's vanity project. But it's still cool.
 
Here are larger versions of two early pictures (displaying the initial design) that appeared in the first pages of this thread. They were illustrated by Vladimir Shelest for Popular Mechanics:

popmech_cover__april_2012__illustration_01__by_shelest-d4xiyj8.jpg

popmech_cover__april_2012__illustration_02__by_shelest-d4xiysf.jpg


Larger-size versions of these paintings (and more of Shelest's great works) can be seen here: http://shelest.deviantart.com/gallery/
 
Nice. B) I really hope Scaled is successful enough with their White Knight 2 / SpaceShip 2 to fund this bigger aircraft.
 
sferrin said:
Nice. B) I really hope Scaled is successful enough with their White Knight 2 / SpaceShip 2 to fund this bigger aircraft.


Huh? Stratolaunch, the company, is funding this aircraft
 
Byeman said:
Stratolaunch, the company, is funding this aircraft

Absolutely. Scaled Composites designs and will build it, but it's a Stratolaunch product. There have actually been very few Scaled projects that were actually company funded. Most of the time the work is done on behalf of another, often bigger corporate entity.
 
Okay, let me rephrase that. I hope the White Knight 2 / Spaceship 2 is successful enough that its success encourages investment in Stratolaunch.
 
sferrin said:
Okay, let me rephrase that. I hope the White Knight 2 / Spaceship 2 is successful enough that its success encourages investment in Stratolaunch.

Why? They are competitors.
 
Byeman said:
sferrin said:
Okay, let me rephrase that. I hope the White Knight 2 / Spaceship 2 is successful enough that its success encourages investment in Stratolaunch.

Why? They are competitors.

They're not competitors. Virgin Galactic is suborbital. They have said that eventually they want to get into the orbital business, but even then that will be for very small payloads. Stratolaunch is much bigger. They operate in entirely different parts of the market.

But I don't think the success of one will affect the other. They share a similar launch method, but that's it. It's like comparing a Cessna to a 787. They do different things and have different requirements.
 
bobbymike said:

I have my doubts. They displayed this at the Space Foundation conference in April. I was there. I took pictures of it (which I cannot find--where did I put them?). I think that the photos on this site were also taken at the same conference. So I don't think anything has changed. But maybe I'm wrong and should look for my images again.
 
blackstar said:
bobbymike said:

I have my doubts. They displayed this at the Space Foundation conference in April. I was there. I took pictures of it (which I cannot find--where did I put them?). I think that the photos on this site were also taken at the same conference. So I don't think anything has changed. But maybe I'm wrong and should look for my images again.

To me the back end looks like two segments of ATK's ASRM with single nozzle?
 
bobbymike said:
To me the back end looks like two segments of ATK's ASRM with single nozzle?

Too heavy for this application and the casings are owned by NASA, which is planning on using them in an expendable mode for early versions of SLS.
 
Aerojet Rocketdyne to Provide Upper-Stage Propulsion for Revolutionary Eagles Launch System

SACRAMENTO, Calif., May 19, 2014 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) -- Aerojet Rocketdyne, a GenCorp (NYSE:GY) company, has received a contract from Stratolaunch Systems Corporation (SSC) to provide six RL10C-1 production engines, with an option to provide an additional six RL10C-1 production engines at a later date, for the third stage of a revolutionary commercial air-launch system. The inaugural launch of Thunderbolt, the air-launch vehicle designed and developed for SSC, is scheduled for 2018.

"Aerojet Rocketdyne is pleased to provide RL10C-1 production engines for the Stratolaunch air-launch vehicle," said Steve Bouley, vice president of Space Launch Systems at Aerojet Rocketdyne. "The RL10 family of engines has a long history of reliability and dependability. This contract expands our reach into commercial ventures and builds greater volume, providing more affordable propulsion to all of our customers."

The design concept for The Eagles Launch System involves the launch of an unmanned rocket dubbed Thunderbolt, carrying a commercial or government payload from beneath the fuselage of a giant carrier aircraft. According to the concept, the carrier aircraft will be powered by six Boeing 747 class jet engines and have a wingspan greater than the length of a football field. Upon reaching a prescribed altitude, the rocket will be dropped from the aircraft, at which point two stages of solid rocket boosters will fire and propel the rocket skyward. Once the solid rocket boosters are expended, two Aerojet Rocketdyne RL10C-1 engines will ignite to ultimately place the satellite into proper orbit.

The RL10C-1 is a liquid-fuel cryogenic rocket engine designed and developed from the RL10 family of upper-stage engines, which have accumulated one of the most impressive lists of accomplishments in the history of space propulsion. The RL10 has helped place numerous military, government and commercial satellites into orbit over the last five decades, and powered scientific space-probe missions to nearly every planet in our solar system. This new application for the RL10 family opens a new era within a commercial venture that will again be a platform for demonstrated reliability and mission success.

Aerojet Rocketdyne is a world-recognized aerospace and defense leader providing propulsion and energetics to the space, missile defense and strategic systems, tactical systems and armaments areas, in support of domestic and international markets. GenCorp is a diversified company that provides innovative solutions that create value for its customers in the aerospace and defense, and real estate markets. Additional information about Aerojet Rocketdyne and GenCorp can be obtained by visiting the companies' websites at www.Rocket.com and www.GenCorp.com.
 
I am genuinely excited by this program. It's private (no government meddling) and they have deep pockets.
 
XP67_Moonbat said:
Put that in your Funk & Wagnalls! :-D

http://www.nbcnews.com/science/space/sierra-nevada-stratolaunch-team-dream-chaser-space-plane-n215386
index.php
 
Carrier aircraft under construction.
 

Attachments

  • Stratolaunch1.jpg
    Stratolaunch1.jpg
    200 KB · Views: 301
  • Stratolaunch2.jpg
    Stratolaunch2.jpg
    241 KB · Views: 297
  • Stratolaunch3.jpg
    Stratolaunch3.jpg
    306 KB · Views: 260
Even if Stratolaunch fails at the rocket launch hurdle, the Roc will stuck as a pretty impressive aircraft. If the rocket launch business never materialize at all, I cann that thing being used as a one shot competitor to the An-225 for oversized cargo...
Do they plan to build a second aircraft ?
 
I'd think the number of airfields it could operate out of would be relatively limited given its landing gear track.
 
http://aviationweek.com/blog/inside-rocs-lair?NL=AW-19&Issue=AW-19_20150226_AW-19_762&sfvc4enews=42&cl=article_5&YM_RID=CPEN1000000230026&YM_MID=1825
 
Re: Stratolaunch Systems Roc

Uploaded on Dec 13, 2011

Stratolaunch Systems is pioneering innovative solutions to revolutionize space transportation. Watch the video or visit http://www.stratolaunch.com to learn more.

http://youtu.be/sh29Pm1Rrc0
 
That video dates from 2011. They have changed some things since then. There's also some recent video of the aircraft under construction.
 
According to the latest information from Stratolaunch, the Orbital Sciences-built Thunderbolt will be 131-ft long, and weigh around 550,000 lb

The three-stage vehicle will use ATK-provided solid rocket motors for the first and second stages, while the third will be powered by two liquid-fueled Aerojet Rocketdyne RL10C engines
-------------------------------------------------------------------
I searched Thunderbolt and couldn't find anything specific on the solid rocket motors - thrust, diameter, etc. - has anyone else come across anything?
 
In a way, I'm a little surprised they went with solid propellent. I know, it's MUCH less complicated than liquid fuel but the weight penalty. . .
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom