SIx turbines turning and one rocket burning... woot!

[David E. Powell]

http://cosmiclog.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2011/12/13/9417303-billionaire-and-space-veterans-start-up-air-launch-venture

<http://cosmiclog.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2011/12/13/9417303-billionaire-
and-space-veterans-start-up-air-launch-venture>

It looks a bit like a Spruce Goose with a split personality!

[Gordon]

On Dec 13, 12:13 pm, "David E. Powell" <David_Powell3...@msn.com>
wrote:
> http://cosmiclog.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2011/12/13/9417303-billionaire-a...

>
> <http://cosmiclog.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2011/12/13/9417303-billionaire-
> and-space-veterans-start-up-air-launch-venture>
>
> It looks a bit like a Spruce Goose with a split personality!

hit that one right on the head, David.

[Alan Erskine]

As the 'German' guy on Laugh In used to say "Interesting...., very
interesting".

[vaughn]

"David E. Powell" <David_Po...@msn.com> wrote in message
news:97d2aead-2766-4e3e...@p9g2000vbb.googlegroups.com...
> http://cosmiclog.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2011/12/13/9417303-billionaire-and-space-veterans-start-up-air-launch-venture

>
> It looks a bit like a Spruce Goose with a split personality!

I vaguely remember a NASA concept for an air-launch "mother ship" that would
have been made from a converted 747. To get a bit extra altitude/airspeed, it
was to have a single space shuttle engine mounted in the aft fuselage.

Vaughn

[Brian Gaff]

Weeell, how exactly is this safer than any other rocket?
Presumably you still have lots of volatile 'stuff' loaded on your ship,
and nowhere to run if it becomes a bad day.
Brian

--
Brian Gaff....Note, this account does not accept Bcc: email.
graphics are great, but the blind can't hear them
Email: bri...@blueyonder.co.uk
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________

"David E. Powell" <David_Po...@msn.com> wrote in message
news:97d2aead-2766-4e3e...@p9g2000vbb.googlegroups.com...

[Alan Erskine]

Air Launched.... somethingorother.... It was a small 'shuttle' like
craft - I remember that too - USAF had something to do with it as well.

[Alan Erskine]

On 14/12/2011 4:26 PM, Brian Gaff wrote:
> Weeell, how exactly is this safer than any other rocket?
> Presumably you still have lots of volatile 'stuff' loaded on your ship,
> and nowhere to run if it becomes a bad day.
> Brian
>

It's one-less rocket stage and several engines less as well. That adds
up to a major improvement in safety.

[vaughn]

"Alan Erskine" <alan.e...@bigpond.com> wrote in message
news:J7YFq.279$v14...@viwinnwfe02.internal.bigpond.com...

> On 14/12/2011 4:26 PM, Brian Gaff wrote:
>> Weeell, how exactly is this safer than any other rocket?
>

> It's one-less rocket stage and several engines less as well. That adds up to
> a major improvement in safety.

Also, the rocket could be launched well away from any population center...unlike
KSC and Vandenberg.

Vaughn

[bob haller]

plus jet fuel is handled all the time for hauling everything.

with a 1500 mile travel to release location no doubt it offers in
flight refueling. so all the fuel weight doesnt have to be included as
payload.

the air stage is a scaled up 747 and could be used for other hauling
too.

i have advocated something like this forever google back my posts are
there

[Alan Erskine]

On 15/12/2011 12:01 AM, bob haller wrote:

>
> the air stage is a scaled up 747 and could be used for other hauling
> too.

It's not a scaled up 747 at all - it's simply quoted as having "747
engines".

[dott.Piergiorgio]

at least, seems that, Griffin, perhaps from his NASA experience, gets
correctly the core issue:

"the courage to fly through failure to get to success," Griffin said

the same concept in my parallel with the London society of adventurers
and the Mayflower... I remain firmly convinced that the same principle
of the XVIth and XVIIth century applies: the governs handle the
exploration and trailblazing and the private ventures commerces and
exploit. The issue is in the not-so fine line between exploration and
commercialization. Today's corporations lack the core principle of the
true capitalism, the risking for profit (a communist can even say that
there's need of wild boars instead of pigs ;) :D )

Best regards from Italy,
dott. Piergiorgio.

[Jeff Findley]

In article <97d2aead-2766-4e3e-a696-
7f7f09...@p9g2000vbb.googlegroups.com>, David_Po...@msn.com
says...

The carrier aircraft looks ambitious, but it's clearly based on prior
work for Spaceship One and Spaceship Two.

I'm still trying to figure out what the SpaceX booster being carried is
all about. It appears to be the same diameter as Falcon 9, but the aft
end has five engines instead of nine. This makes sense as the rocket
will get its initial "boost" from the carrier aircraft.

It does look like it's designed to carry Dragon and it certainly looks
like the first stage of the rocket might be reusable. Not sure about
the second stage.

The StratoLaunch website has a lot of info there, but it's a bit slow.
I'm wondering how many people, like myself, are trying to access the
site as I type.

Jeff
--
" Ares 1 is a prime example of the fact that NASA just can't get it
up anymore... and when they can, it doesn't stay up long. ;) "
- tinker

[Jeff Findley]

In article <jc9c1h$do4$1...@dont-email.me>, Bri...@blueyonder.co.uk
says...

>
> Weeell, how exactly is this safer than any other rocket?
> Presumably you still have lots of volatile 'stuff' loaded on your ship,
> and nowhere to run if it becomes a bad day.
> Brian

It's likely to (eventually) be safer if all of the stages are fully
reusable. The ability to actually fully test your rocket stages, in
flight, before trusting it to people is something you simply *can't* do
with expendables.

The best you can do with expendables is test your rocket stages on a
test stand before flight. While this testing helps eliminate some
failure modes, it does not eliminate them all. One class of failure
modes is related to stage separation, which you can't easily test on the
ground.

[Jeff Findley]

In article <J7YFq.279$v14...@viwinnwfe02.internal.bigpond.com>,
alan.e...@bigpond.com says...

Not really. This looks to be a carrier aircraft mated with a two stage
launch vehicle. Falcon 9 is already two stages. But look closely and
you'll see that the first (rocket powered) stage of this proposed launch
vehicle only has five engines instead of the 9 on Falcon 9. So, at
least there are fewer engines to worry about.

The real "win" would be if the rocket stages are reusable. If they are,
you can prove they work in flight before trusting them to a crewed
launch. You simply *can't* do that with expendables. Every launch of
an expendable is the *first* flight of that copy of the hardware.

[Dean Markley]

On Dec 14, 8:07 am, "vaughn" <vaughnsi...@gmail.invalid> wrote:
> "Alan Erskine" <alan.erski...@bigpond.com> wrote in message

Don't both of those sites launch out over open ocean? Not many
population centers out there!

[Jeff Findley]

In article <Ps1Gq.288$v14...@viwinnwfe02.internal.bigpond.com>,
alan.e...@bigpond.com says...

Don't confuse Bob with facts. His head might explode.

[Jeff Findley]

In article <160c7fcf-6c69-48f1-9d26-0ea365ff71a9
@n10g2000vbg.googlegroups.com>, dama...@gmail.com says...

They generally launch in that direction, but there is always the remote
possibility that the launch will go out of control and need to be
destroyed. Also, there have been rockets go "boom" in the past, raining
down chunks of burning solid propellant. Not something to be taken
lightly.

[Alexander Schreiber]

Brian Gaff <Bri...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
> Weeell, how exactly is this safer than any other rocket?
> Presumably you still have lots of volatile 'stuff' loaded on your ship,
> and nowhere to run if it becomes a bad day.

Well, for starters your first ascent "stage", the aircraft, uses standard
jet engines. So the fuel is just kerosene, which is comparatively[0] safe
and easy to handle and use.

In the case of Burt Rutans design he is using a hybrid engine for the
second stage, the actual "spaceship"[1]. It is powered by a hybrid engine:
rubber compound based solid fuel and nitrous oxide as oxidizer. Not as
powerful as the LOX/LH2 mix, but a lot easier and safer to handle ;-)
This also means the engine is restartable and IIRC the amount of thrust
produced can be changed within limits.

Kind regards,
Alex.
[0] Compared to, say, LH2 rocket fuel
[1] Well, still sub orbital AFAIK
--
"Opportunity is missed by most people because it is dressed in overalls and
looks like work." -- Thomas A. Edison

[Jeff Findley]

In article <slrnjehdq...@frodo.angband.thangorodrim.de>,
a...@usenet.thangorodrim.de says...

>
> Brian Gaff <Bri...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
> > Weeell, how exactly is this safer than any other rocket?
> > Presumably you still have lots of volatile 'stuff' loaded on your ship,
> > and nowhere to run if it becomes a bad day.
>
> Well, for starters your first ascent "stage", the aircraft, uses standard
> jet engines. So the fuel is just kerosene, which is comparatively[0] safe
> and easy to handle and use.

The upper stages burn kerosene as well. Admittedly, the addition of LOX
tanks in the upper stages makes them a bit more difficult to deal with
in terms of safety.

> In the case of Burt Rutans design he is using a hybrid engine for the
> second stage, the actual "spaceship"[1]. It is powered by a hybrid engine:
> rubber compound based solid fuel and nitrous oxide as oxidizer. Not as
> powerful as the LOX/LH2 mix, but a lot easier and safer to handle ;-)
> This also means the engine is restartable and IIRC the amount of thrust
> produced can be changed within limits.

But the ISP of a hybrid is worse than a lox/kerosene engine. Plus the
mass of the empty hybrid casing is much more than the empty tanks plus
engine in a lox/kerosene stage. Hybrids combine some of the worst
attributes of liquids (handling of strong liquid, sometimes cryogenic,
oxidizers) and solids (big, heavy casings required to contain the
burning solid fuel).

[Ken S. Tucker]

On Dec 14, 6:48 am, Alexander Schreiber <a...@usenet.thangorodrim.de>
wrote:

> Brian Gaff <Bria...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
> > Weeell, how exactly is this safer than any other rocket?
> > Presumably you still have lots of volatile 'stuff' loaded on your ship,
> > and nowhere to run if it becomes a bad day.
>
> Well, for starters your first ascent "stage", the aircraft, uses standard
> jet engines. So the fuel is just kerosene, which is comparatively[0] safe
> and easy to handle and use.
>
> In the case of Burt Rutans design he is using a hybrid engine for the
> second stage, the actual "spaceship"[1]. It is powered by a hybrid engine:
> rubber compound based solid fuel and nitrous oxide as oxidizer. Not as
> powerful as the LOX/LH2 mix, but a lot easier and safer to handle ;-)
> This also means the engine is restartable and IIRC the amount of thrust
> produced can be changed within limits.

http://www.popsci.com/files/imagecache/article_image_large/articles/Stratolaunch3.jpg

Looks very good. Wing planform (aspect ratio) like a U2, for range and
altitude, pods for fuel.
All in all quite simple.
We could buy some to use as ICBM/ALCM launchers
Ken

[Alan Erskine]

On 15/12/2011 1:49 AM, Jeff Findley wrote:
> In article<Ps1Gq.288$v14...@viwinnwfe02.internal.bigpond.com>,
> alan.e...@bigpond.com says...
>>
>> On 15/12/2011 12:01 AM, bob haller wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> the air stage is a scaled up 747 and could be used for other hauling
>>> too.
>>
>> It's not a scaled up 747 at all - it's simply quoted as having "747
>> engines".
>
> Don't confuse Bob with facts. His head might explode.
>
> Jeff

Cut the man some slack.

[Alan Erskine]

Population is right up to the boundary of the National Park where the
Cape is located.

[bob urz]

why reinvent the wheel?
just get a coupe of surplus Antonov An-225 and marry them together
like they did the dual P51's.

I'm sure the Russians would gibe them a deal... ;)

bob

[David E. Powell]

On Dec 14, 3:20 pm, bob urz <so...@inetnebr.com> wrote:
> On 12/13/2011 2:13 PM, David E. Powell wrote:
>

> >http://cosmiclog.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2011/12/13/9417303-billionaire-a...

>
> > <http://cosmiclog.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2011/12/13/9417303-billionaire-
> > and-space-veterans-start-up-air-launch-venture>
>
> > It looks a bit like a Spruce Goose with a split personality!
>
> why reinvent the wheel?
> just get a coupe of surplus  Antonov An-225 and marry them together
> like they did the dual P51's.
>
> I'm sure the Russians would gibe them a deal... ;)
>
> bob

I think ther is only one An-225, though tere are a few An-224s. This
wat the plane will be an all-up design and can be specialized. They
are reportedly buying two 747s, but stripping them for engines and
some avionics and other parts.

The 747 or An-225 is designed for a purpose and may be adapted, but
what they are building is going to be specialized. Wing, weight, fuel
capacity and storage, everything. If they mated two craft they'd need
to redo the central wing and maybe the engines, and deal with a lot of
what was already built. They probably feel it is better to keep the
plane as specialized but simple as possible, and build it all in house
as much as possible, with their own desing and their own materials,
which are quite amazing.

I foresee composites getting very big in the space business if they
have not already. They can be fabircated in different ways than metal,
be strong yet light, and even be assembled in different ways. Plus
they can take some pretty sick temperatures and other stresses.
Something like an orbiter bus or rocket stage could be a good fit for
them.

[Alexander Schreiber]

If they could. The An-225 has been purpose built to ferry the Buran around.
Only one An-225 actually exist in flight worthy state, the other An-225
(only those two exist at all) is only partially completed.

The next best candidate would be the An-124, apparently still the worlds
second largest[0] (after the An-225) operating cargo aircraft. Good for up to
150 tonnes over 3200 kilometers.

Kind regards,
Alex.

[0] And the worlds largest cargo aircraft actually built in series as opposed
to a custom one-off job.

[Alexander Schreiber]

Jeff Findley <jeff.f...@nospam.ugs.com> wrote:
> In article <slrnjehdq...@frodo.angband.thangorodrim.de>,
> a...@usenet.thangorodrim.de says...
>>
>> Brian Gaff <Bri...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>> > Weeell, how exactly is this safer than any other rocket?
>> > Presumably you still have lots of volatile 'stuff' loaded on your ship,
>> > and nowhere to run if it becomes a bad day.
>>
>> Well, for starters your first ascent "stage", the aircraft, uses standard
>> jet engines. So the fuel is just kerosene, which is comparatively[0] safe
>> and easy to handle and use.
>
> The upper stages burn kerosene as well. Admittedly, the addition of LOX
> tanks in the upper stages makes them a bit more difficult to deal with
> in terms of safety.
>
>> In the case of Burt Rutans design he is using a hybrid engine for the
>> second stage, the actual "spaceship"[1]. It is powered by a hybrid engine:
>> rubber compound based solid fuel and nitrous oxide as oxidizer. Not as
>> powerful as the LOX/LH2 mix, but a lot easier and safer to handle ;-)
>> This also means the engine is restartable and IIRC the amount of thrust
>> produced can be changed within limits.
>
> But the ISP of a hybrid is worse than a lox/kerosene engine.

Sure, there are always tradeoffs in rocket engine design. From what I
remember from reading Ignition!, LH2 and liquid flourine would be one of
the most powerful (in terms of ISP) chemical fuels you can get. Unfortunately,
there are some slight ... issues with handling the oxidizer and in dealing
with the engine exhaust which make it a less popular choice ;-)

> Plus the
> mass of the empty hybrid casing is much more than the empty tanks plus
> engine in a lox/kerosene stage. Hybrids combine some of the worst
> attributes of liquids (handling of strong liquid, sometimes cryogenic,
> oxidizers) and solids (big, heavy casings required to contain the
> burning solid fuel).

The nitrous oxide seems to be the oxidizer of choice for hybrid rocket
motor designs, due to being quite safe to handle and rather dense in
liquid form.

Kind regards,
Alex.

[Brian Thorn]

On Wed, 14 Dec 2011 18:20:17 +1100, Alan Erskine
<alan.e...@bigpond.com> wrote:


>> I vaguely remember a NASA concept for an air-launch "mother ship" that would
>> have been made from a converted 747. To get a bit extra altitude/airspeed, it
>> was to have a single space shuttle engine mounted in the aft fuselage.

>Air Launched.... somethingorother.... It was a small 'shuttle' like
>craft - I remember that too - USAF had something to do with it as well.

It was all USAF. "Space Sortie Vehicle".

http://www.thespacereview.com/article/1591/1

Brian

[Brian Thorn]

On Wed, 14 Dec 2011 18:21:12 +1100, Alan Erskine
<alan.e...@bigpond.com> wrote:

>It's one-less rocket stage and several engines less as well.

Technically, they're replacing four Merlins with 6 turbofans... so
*more* engines.

>That adds up to a major improvement in safety.

I'd like to know what they'll do if, say one engine doesn't ignite. On
a pad they just abort, on Stratolaunch... "bombs away!"

Brian

[Brian Thorn]

On Wed, 14 Dec 2011 10:52:58 -0800 (PST), "Ken S. Tucker"
<dyna...@vianet.on.ca> wrote:

>http://www.popsci.com/files/imagecache/article_image_large/articles/Stratolaunch3.jpg
>
>Looks very good. Wing planform (aspect ratio) like a U2, for range and
>altitude, pods for fuel.
>All in all quite simple.
>We could buy some to use as ICBM/ALCM launchers

Very few places you could base that monster, though. It is too wide
for pretty much anything except the KSC SLF and the desert runways.
Ditto for the hinted "commercial cargo aircraft" alternative career.

Brian

[Brian Thorn]

On Wed, 14 Dec 2011 09:04:56 -0500, Jeff Findley
<jeff.f...@nospam.ugs.com> wrote:

>The carrier aircraft looks ambitious, but it's clearly based on prior
>work for Spaceship One and Spaceship Two.
>
>I'm still trying to figure out what the SpaceX booster being carried is
>all about. It appears to be the same diameter as Falcon 9, but the aft
>end has five engines instead of nine.

It looks very much like Falcon 5 reborn. With wings.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falcon_5

>This makes sense as the rocket
>will get its initial "boost" from the carrier aircraft.

I don't see the value in this concept, though. It would seem to me a
simple stretch of Falcon 9 with uprated engines (already in work
anyway) would be a lot cheaper than Stratolaunch.

Brian

[David E. Powell]

On Dec 14, 6:28 pm, Brian Thorn <bthor...@suddenlink.net> wrote:
> On Wed, 14 Dec 2011 18:21:12 +1100, Alan Erskine
>

> <alan.erski...@bigpond.com> wrote:
> >It's one-less rocket stage and several engines less as well.
>
> Technically, they're replacing four Merlins with 6 turbofans... so
> *more* engines.
>
> >That adds up to a major improvement in safety.
>
> I'd like to know what they'll do if, say one engine doesn't ignite. On
> a pad they just abort, on Stratolaunch... "bombs away!"
>
> Brian

They can launch over the desert or the ocean. They may even fly closer
to the equator as they do.

[Daryl]

You want me to be where, in what, doing what? Are you out of
your F***ing mind?!!!!!

--
http://tvmoviesforfree.com
for free movies and Nostalgic TV. Tons of Military shows and
programs.

[Brian Thorn]

On Wed, 14 Dec 2011 17:44:18 -0800 (PST), "David E. Powell"
<David_Po...@msn.com> wrote:


>They can launch over the desert or the ocean. They may even fly closer
>to the equator as they do.

They'll have to launch over an ocean, I think. The first stage is
still going to come down somewhere after burnout, and it best be not
on a city.

But I don't see how they can fire up the engines while still attached
to the Stratolaunch mothership (the sheering forces and control of the
mothership would be a nightmare to deal with). And if they drop first
and then fire the engines (which is what Pegasus and SpaceShipTwo do)
they won't know if an engine has failed to ignite until it is too
late. (Pegasus is a solid booster with no serious worries about not
igniting properly, SS2 can still make a normal landing after an engine
misfire.) The rocket and payload will be lost. (On a regular launch
pad, they just abort and fix whatever went wrong, then try again
later. SpaceX has actually already done precisely that with its Falcon
1.)

It seems to me that one or two Falcon 5 and payloads in the ocean due
to a problem that would be completely survivable in traditional
launch, and whatever they hope to save by having that flexible launch
site with Stratolaunch will be gone.

I really don't understand what the point of this is. There must be
more to their plans than they're letting on, because what they've
shown us so far just doesn't close the economic case.

Brian

[David E. Powell]

On Dec 14, 9:17 pm, Daryl <dh...@nospami70west3.com> wrote:
> On 12/14/2011 4:25 PM, Brian Thorn wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Wed, 14 Dec 2011 18:20:17 +1100, Alan Erskine

> > <alan.erski...@bigpond.com>  wrote:

>
> >>> I vaguely remember a NASA concept for an air-launch "mother ship" that would
> >>> have been made from a converted 747.  To get a bit extra altitude/airspeed, it
> >>> was to have a single space shuttle engine mounted in the aft fuselage.
>
> >> Air Launched.... somethingorother.... It was a small 'shuttle' like
> >> craft - I remember that too - USAF had something to do with it as well.
>
> > It was all USAF. "Space Sortie Vehicle".
>
> >http://www.thespacereview.com/article/1591/1
>
> > Brian
>
> You want me to be where, in what, doing what?  Are you out of
> your F***ing mind?!!!!!

Those designs would be great in a Bruckheimer movie! =)

> --http://tvmoviesforfree.com

[JF Mezei]

Interesting that they just specify "747 engines". Are they buying old
used engines, or the current generation of GEnx used for the 747-8 ?

It is disapointing that they the plan to launch at only 30k feet
altitude. I would hve expected higher launch.

One big advantage is that they can get out of the way compared to
current launch sites and catch an ISS orbit on the descending node by
flying east so the rocket doesn't overfly Cuba as it dumbs its first stage.

In terms of overall design, wouldn't it be better to have a
conventional aircraft shape, load the rocket into the fuselage, and drop
it like bombers dropped bombs ?


Or what about a plane with fuselage only for cockpit in front, no
fuselage under tail and fuselage only in back, and you load the rocket
under the wing. They could then have more aerodynamic flying once the
rocket has been dropped and would allow for wider payload (such as
rocket with short wings)


Th 224 and 225 have same fuselage cross section, but the 225 is a
stretched version with larger wings and tails and 6 engines instead of 4.

[Andrew Swallow]

As a spacecraft launcher it does not need may airfields.

Andrew Swallow

[Brian Thorn]

On Thu, 15 Dec 2011 09:49:42 +0000, Andrew Swallow
<am.sw...@btinternet.com> wrote:


>> Very few places you could base that monster, though. It is too wide
>> for pretty much anything except the KSC SLF and the desert runways.
>> Ditto for the hinted "commercial cargo aircraft" alternative career.
>>
>> Brian
>>
>As a spacecraft launcher it does not need may airfields.

Well, that depends on the range of the aircraft (which remains to be
seen.) But Ken was talking about using it as an ICBM launcher, in
other words, a weapon system. You would need many airfields for that,
or your enemy could easily disable the system by bombing the few
runways the thing can use.

Brian

[Brian Thorn]

On Thu, 15 Dec 2011 01:25:30 -0500, JF Mezei
<jfmezei...@vaxination.ca> wrote:

>Interesting that they just specify "747 engines". Are they buying old
>used engines, or the current generation of GEnx used for the 747-8 ?

Probably new-builds.

>It is disapointing that they the plan to launch at only 30k feet
>altitude. I would hve expected higher launch.
>
>One big advantage is that they can get out of the way compared to
>current launch sites and catch an ISS orbit on the descending node by
>flying east so the rocket doesn't overfly Cuba as it dumbs its first stage.
>
>In terms of overall design, wouldn't it be better to have a
>conventional aircraft shape, load the rocket into the fuselage, and drop
>it like bombers dropped bombs ?

I suspect that would be much too limiting on the rocket. They clearly
want flexibility, and with Allen involved, I strongly suspect they
have an eye on using this for SpaceShipThree in the future, and we
don't know what shape that will be... so design the most flexible
mother ship that you can now.

>Or what about a plane with fuselage only for cockpit in front, no
>fuselage under tail and fuselage only in back, and you load the rocket
>under the wing. They could then have more aerodynamic flying once the
>rocket has been dropped and would allow for wider payload (such as
>rocket with short wings)

Again, too limiting. Short wings probably won't suffice for a rocket
the size of Falcon 5, and you have less flexibility on stretching the
rocket (stages or payload) in the future.


Brian

[Greg (Strider) Moore]

"Brian Thorn" wrote in message
news:2cmie71nuqcfhqfl7...@4ax.com...

>
>On Wed, 14 Dec 2011 17:44:18 -0800 (PST), "David E. Powell"
><David_Po...@msn.com> wrote:
>
>
>>They can launch over the desert or the ocean. They may even fly closer
>>to the equator as they do.
>
>They'll have to launch over an ocean, I think. The first stage is
>still going to come down somewhere after burnout, and it best be not
>on a city.
>
>But I don't see how they can fire up the engines while still attached
>to the Stratolaunch mothership (the sheering forces and control of the
>mothership would be a nightmare to deal with). And if they drop first
>and then fire the engines (which is what Pegasus and SpaceShipTwo do)
>they won't know if an engine has failed to ignite until it is too
>late. (Pegasus is a solid booster with no serious worries about not
>igniting properly, SS2 can still make a normal landing after an engine
>misfire.) The rocket and payload will be lost. (On a regular launch
>pad, they just abort and fix whatever went wrong, then try again
>later. SpaceX has actually already done precisely that with its Falcon
>1.)
>

And this is different from a failure of a second stage ignition?

>It seems to me that one or two Falcon 5 and payloads in the ocean due
>to a problem that would be completely survivable in traditional
>launch, and whatever they hope to save by having that flexible launch
>site with Stratolaunch will be gone.

Again, this is different from a second stage ignition failure how?

>
>I really don't understand what the point of this is. There must be
>more to their plans than they're letting on, because what they've
>shown us so far just doesn't close the economic case.
>

Among other things, it may be cheaper (fewer engines, etc) and gives you
pretty much infinite flexibility in launch inclination.


>Brian
>
>

--
Greg D. Moore President Green Mountain Software
http://www.greenms.com
Help honor our WWII Veterans: http://www.honorflight.org/
Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum viditur.

[David E. Powell]

On Dec 15, 1:25 am, JF Mezei <jfmezei.spam...@vaxination.ca> wrote:
> Interesting that they just specify "747 engines". Are they buying old
> used engines, or the current generation of GEnx used for the 747-8 ?

Good point. I heard that "in the day" 747s coud get up quite high, so
the question of economy vs. max altitude must be a real issue. I am
not sure if the newer engines could get higher or were more economized
but better at lower altitudes.

> It is disapointing that they the plan to launch at only 30k feet
> altitude. I would hve expected higher launch.

I would have too. I heard examples cited where 747s could get higher
in an earlier "towed launch" thread where I had floated the idea of a
747 tow plane launching a smaller space plane. There is the question
of the rocket craft's weight but then again the carrier plane could be
optimized for carry, light weight in construction and weight diverted
to wingspan, structural integrity and fuel capacity. She'd besically
be a one job plane and could be engineered accordingly.

> One big advantage is that they can get out of the way compared to
> current launch sites and catch an ISS orbit on the descending node by
> flying east so the rocket doesn't overfly Cuba as it dumbs its first stage.

That is a very good point, and they could fly further south than
current continental US launch sites too, out over the oceans. Being
closer to the Equator could help them some.

[vaughn]

"JF Mezei" <jfmezei...@vaxination.ca> wrote in message
news:4ee992de$0$19919$c3e8da3$92d0...@news.astraweb.com...

> Interesting that they just specify "747 engines". Are they buying old
> used engines, or the current generation of GEnx used for the 747-8 ?
>

There is a partial answer within the article: They will be used engines, we
don't know how old or what specific model:. "Wentz said the venture already has
a contract to acquire two Boeing 747s. The engines as well as other subsystems
would be used on the Stratolaunch super-carrier.".

Vaughn

[David E. Powell]

On Dec 15, 2:25 pm, "vaughn" <vaughnsi...@gmail.invalid> wrote:
> "JF Mezei" <jfmezei.spam...@vaxination.ca> wrote in message

I know older 747s are plentiful, in a previous "towed launch" threads
747 SPs came up, they are relatively commo in the boneyards these
days. If budget is a factor it might make the older models more
attractive. Parts and maintenance is a concern but they won't be
flying airline style hours on the engines, at least not at first.

[Ken S. Tucker]

On Dec 15, 7:18 am, Brian Thorn <bthor...@suddenlink.net> wrote:
> On Thu, 15 Dec 2011 09:49:42 +0000, Andrew Swallow
>

Brian, your thoughts are acknowledged.
It's premature for me to write about the weaponization of the
StratoLauncher to prove a point by point argument.
It's a future I can see.
Regards
Ken

[Dan]

I saw an interview with Rutan on television today. They are looking
at another 747 for landing gear.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

[Dr J R Stockton]

In sci.space.shuttle message <MPG.2952785b3...@news.eternal-
september.org>, Wed, 14 Dec 2011 09:10:27, Jeff Findley
<jeff.f...@nospam.ugs.com> posted:

>
>Not really. This looks to be a carrier aircraft mated with a two stage
>launch vehicle. Falcon 9 is already two stages. But look closely and
>you'll see that the first (rocket powered) stage of this proposed launch
>vehicle only has five engines instead of the 9 on Falcon 9. So, at
>least there are fewer engines to worry about.

But, IIRC, Musk has explained that with Falcon 9 one can lose an engine
at any time without loss of mission. Will that still apply with a mere
four or five engines?

Does it all take off with the Falcon fuelled, or is the fuel in the two
fuselages and transferred in flight, which might reduce take-off stress?

OTOH, make one of more of those Falcon engines re-lightable, and use as
a JATO system - should shorten the take-off. Or put a Falcon 1 first
stage in each fuselage <G>.

--
(c) John Stockton, Surrey, UK. ?@merlyn.demon.co.uk Turnpike v6.05 MIME.
Web <http://www.merlyn.demon.co.uk/> - FAQish topics, acronyms, & links.
Proper <= 4-line sig. separator as above, a line exactly "-- " (SonOfRFC1036)
Do not Mail News to me. Before a reply, quote with ">" or "> " (SonOfRFC1036)

[Brian Thorn]

On Thu, 15 Dec 2011 11:44:10 -0500, "Greg \(Strider\) Moore"
<moo...@ignorethisgreenms.com> wrote:


>And this is different from a failure of a second stage ignition?

Uh, Greg... Stratolaunch has a second stage, too. It is basically a
shorted Falcon 9 with five engines. So Stratolaunch has the same
second stage failure vulnerability as the land launch Falcon 9, but
Stratolaunch comes with the additional risk of first stage failure to
ignite and the resulting loss of a perfectly good rocket because one
engine failed to start up properly.

>>It seems to me that one or two Falcon 5 and payloads in the ocean due
>>to a problem that would be completely survivable in traditional
>>launch, and whatever they hope to save by having that flexible launch
>>site with Stratolaunch will be gone.
>
>Again, this is different from a second stage ignition failure how?

You can make sure Stage 1 is up and running before committing to
flight from Pad 40. You can't from Stratolaunch. Greatly increased
risk of loss of payload.

>Among other things, it may be cheaper (fewer engines, etc)

More engines. Stratolaunch has six 747 engines, which probably aren't
much cheaper than the four Merlin 1Cs deleted from Falcon 9 to make
Falcon 5, especially given that SpaceX will have to procure them from
GE or Rolls, not from their own inhouse production line.

>and gives you
>pretty much infinite flexibility in launch inclination.

No, range of the mothership will limit this.

Brian

[Andrew Swallow]

On 16/12/2011 00:55, Brian Thorn wrote:
{snip}

> More engines. Stratolaunch has six 747 engines, which probably aren't
> much cheaper than the four Merlin 1Cs deleted from Falcon 9 to make
> Falcon 5, especially given that SpaceX will have to procure them from
> GE or Rolls, not from their own inhouse production line.

The jet engines and the aircraft are reusable. Currently the Marlin 1Cs
are expendable.

Andrew Swallow

[Brian Thorn]

On Fri, 16 Dec 2011 01:52:34 +0000, Andrew Swallow
<am.sw...@btinternet.com> wrote:

>> More engines. Stratolaunch has six 747 engines, which probably aren't
>> much cheaper than the four Merlin 1Cs deleted from Falcon 9 to make
>> Falcon 5, especially given that SpaceX will have to procure them from
>> GE or Rolls, not from their own inhouse production line.

>The jet engines and the aircraft are reusable. Currently the Marlin 1Cs
>are expendable.

For now, yes. Does this mean SpaceX has given up on First Stage
reusability? They've made a major shift if they have. Only two months
ago they were showing cool animations of fully reusable Falcon 9s,
(even the *second* stage) making vertical landings. And that, the fans
tell us, is what the Grasshopper is being built to test and refine.

So I ask again: What the heck is the point of this thing? The economic
case is tenuous at best, and the reliability argument is nonexistent.
Deleting four Merlins does not outweigh this monstrosity of a
motherplane and its better-light-the-first-time launch concept. The
"launch range congestion" argument is a pipedream. There aren't enough
payloads to launch annually even if SpaceX wins them all to get close
to overrunning Cape and Vandenberg capacity, and SpaceX will not win
them all by a long shot... Ariane will not go quietly, and Russia can
still challenge them on price. Even if SpaceX thinks the Cape can't
support all the launches they want, it would likely be much cheaper to
invest in improving Cape infrastructure than in Stratolaunch.

There is more going on here than they're telling us. Nothing wrong
with that, they're under no obligation to tell us a damned thing. But
I sure am curious as to what this is *really* all about.

Brian

[Steve Hix]

In article <q2hle7tdjtvs8d3m9...@4ax.com>,

Brian Thorn <btho...@suddenlink.net> wrote:
>
> So I ask again: What the heck is the point of this thing? The economic
> case is tenuous at best, and the reliability argument is nonexistent.
> Deleting four Merlins does not outweigh this monstrosity of a
> motherplane and its better-light-the-first-time launch concept. The
> "launch range congestion" argument is a pipedream. There aren't enough
> payloads to launch annually even if SpaceX wins them all to get close
> to overrunning Cape and Vandenberg capacity, and SpaceX will not win
> them all by a long shot... Ariane will not go quietly, and Russia can
> still challenge them on price. Even if SpaceX thinks the Cape can't
> support all the launches they want, it would likely be much cheaper to
> invest in improving Cape infrastructure than in Stratolaunch.

Could be that it's much more a project of Paul Allen's, and SpaceX is along for
possible benefit if it gets off the ground, so to speak, with Allen's business
as a customer.

Rather than SpaceX changing their direction on their own and completely.

[bob haller]

On Dec 15, 7:55 pm, Brian Thorn <bthor...@suddenlink.net> wrote:
> On Thu, 15 Dec 2011 11:44:10 -0500, "Greg \(Strider\) Moore"
>

quoted at 1500 mile range and in flight refueling could likely make it
anywhere

[Jeff Findley]

In article <iiRHhGaU...@invalid.uk.co.demon.merlyn.invalid>,
repl...@merlyn.demon.co.uk says...

>
> In sci.space.shuttle message <MPG.2952785b3...@news.eternal-
> september.org>, Wed, 14 Dec 2011 09:10:27, Jeff Findley
> <jeff.f...@nospam.ugs.com> posted:
>
> >
> >Not really. This looks to be a carrier aircraft mated with a two stage
> >launch vehicle. Falcon 9 is already two stages. But look closely and
> >you'll see that the first (rocket powered) stage of this proposed launch
> >vehicle only has five engines instead of the 9 on Falcon 9. So, at
> >least there are fewer engines to worry about.
>
> But, IIRC, Musk has explained that with Falcon 9 one can lose an engine
> at any time without loss of mission. Will that still apply with a mere
> four or five engines?

It all depends if engine out capability is designed into the first
rocket powered stage. Saturn V's first two stages each had five
engines, and I believe that it had engine out capability for most of the
flight. I believe that the period right after takeoff might not have
had engine out capability.

> Does it all take off with the Falcon fuelled, or is the fuel in the
two
> fuselages and transferred in flight, which might reduce take-off stress?

It could certainly be done either way. If there is no way to transfer
fuel and oxidizer to the rocket powered stages in flight, then obviously
it would need to be in the rocket stages when the carrier takes off from
the runway. If this is the case, there needs to be enough LOX in the
stages to account for any boil-off until stage ignition.

If you add the ability to top-off the LOX on the rocket stages from
tanks in the carrier aircraft, it's just a bit more work to have all of
the LOX on the carrier aircraft during takeoff.

In flight kerosene fuel transfers are routine, so that's certainly
possible too.

> OTOH, make one of more of those Falcon engines re-lightable, and use as
> a JATO system - should shorten the take-off. Or put a Falcon 1 first
> stage in each fuselage <G>.

Not necessary. Look at the An-225. Its payload is 550,000 lbs (less
than what the Stratolaunch carrier aircraft can carry) and as far as I
know, it doesn't require its payloads to have rocket assist on takeoffs.
;-)

Jeff
--
" Ares 1 is a prime example of the fact that NASA just can't get it
up anymore... and when they can, it doesn't stay up long. ;) "
- tinker

[Jeff Findley]

In article <4ee992de$0$19919$c3e8da3$92d0...@news.astraweb.com>,
jfmezei...@vaxination.ca says...

>
> Interesting that they just specify "747 engines". Are they buying old
> used engines, or the current generation of GEnx used for the 747-8 ?

Used. From what I've read, they've already purchased two used 747's to
be used as parts donors.

> It is disapointing that they the plan to launch at only 30k feet
> altitude. I would hve expected higher launch.

Higher is better, but this is obviously an engineering trade-off.
Flying higher than 30k feet would require a bigger carrier aircraft.

> One big advantage is that they can get out of the way compared to
> current launch sites and catch an ISS orbit on the descending node by
> flying east so the rocket doesn't overfly Cuba as it dumbs its first stage.

Plus they could do a first orbit rendezvous with ISS on any flight
launched on any day. With a fixed launch site, you can't do first orbit
rendezvous without waiting for the proper launch window to open up.

> In terms of overall design, wouldn't it be better to have a
> conventional aircraft shape, load the rocket into the fuselage, and drop
> it like bombers dropped bombs ?

Big bomb bay doors like this are a structural challenge compared to a
conventional fuselage design like you'd find in a typical commercial
aircraft.

Scaled Composites has already built two types of carrier aircraft using
the same dual fuselage layout (one for Spaceship One to win the X-Prize
and one for Spaceship Two for Virgin Galactic). I'm sure Scaled would
rather stick with what they know works and scale it up than try
something new and unproven.

[Jeff Findley]

In article <4MmdnXxePKNDvnfT...@earthlink.com>,
moo...@ignorethisgreenms.com says...

I'm in agreement.

Note that Both Falcon 9's first stage and upper stage engines are
Merlin's, so in air ignition for the first rocket powered stage of
Stratolaunch isn't really any different than the ignition of the Falcon
9's second stage engine.

I wouldn't be surprised if Stratolaunch was designing their first rocket
powered stage for single engine out capability. That would allow a
successful launch even if one of the five engines didn't light.

> >
> >I really don't understand what the point of this is. There must be
> >more to their plans than they're letting on, because what they've
> >shown us so far just doesn't close the economic case.
> >
>
> Among other things, it may be cheaper (fewer engines, etc) and gives you
> pretty much infinite flexibility in launch inclination.

Air launch gives you more launch windows than a fixed site. For ISS
missions, you could do a first orbit rendezvous with a Stratolaunch
mission launched at just about anytime you want. For an ISS mission on
a Falcon 9 from KSC, you can't do first orbit rendezvous without waiting

for the proper launch window to open up.

As for other possible uses of this, I'd imagine the Air Force would like
the ability to launch payloads into any orbit at any time. Stick a
reusable orbital vehicle on Stratolaunch and the Air Force would be in
nirvana.

[Jeff Findley]

In article <085le71eqg50sqdqa...@4ax.com>, bthorn64
@suddenlink.net says...

>
> On Thu, 15 Dec 2011 11:44:10 -0500, "Greg \(Strider\) Moore"
> <moo...@ignorethisgreenms.com> wrote:
>
>
> >And this is different from a failure of a second stage ignition?
>
> Uh, Greg... Stratolaunch has a second stage, too. It is basically a
> shorted Falcon 9 with five engines. So Stratolaunch has the same
> second stage failure vulnerability as the land launch Falcon 9, but
> Stratolaunch comes with the additional risk of first stage failure to
> ignite and the resulting loss of a perfectly good rocket because one
> engine failed to start up properly.
>
> >>It seems to me that one or two Falcon 5 and payloads in the ocean due
> >>to a problem that would be completely survivable in traditional
> >>launch, and whatever they hope to save by having that flexible launch
> >>site with Stratolaunch will be gone.
> >
> >Again, this is different from a second stage ignition failure how?
>
> You can make sure Stage 1 is up and running before committing to
> flight from Pad 40. You can't from Stratolaunch. Greatly increased
> risk of loss of payload.

Not if you design the stage to handle a single engine out throughout the
flight envelope. Doing this would greatly reduce the risk of loss of
mission due to engine ignition failures. The chance you'll have
multiple engine failures on a single stage is much less than a single
engine failure.

Note that for Falcon 9 and for Stratolaunch, failure of the *single*
upper stage engine to ignite would also cause loss of mission. Because
of this, I'm sure SpaceX has made its in flight ignition system as
reliable as possible.

> >Among other things, it may be cheaper (fewer engines, etc)
>
> More engines. Stratolaunch has six 747 engines, which probably aren't
> much cheaper than the four Merlin 1Cs deleted from Falcon 9 to make
> Falcon 5, especially given that SpaceX will have to procure them from
> GE or Rolls, not from their own inhouse production line.

But the engines on the carrier aircraft aren't thrown away after each
and every flight! This is why SpaceX ultimately wants their rocket
powered stages to be reusable. Stratolaunch is an obvious first step
towards reusability.

> >and gives you
> >pretty much infinite flexibility in launch inclination.
>
> No, range of the mothership will limit this.

Certainly, depending on the range of the mothership. The easy way to
address this is to make sure the range of the mothership is enough to
meet this requirement.

But even if the range was limited such that "infinite" flexibility can't
be achieved, it's still going to be less limiting than a *fixed* launch
site on the ground.

[Jeff Findley]

In article <q2hle7tdjtvs8d3m9...@4ax.com>, bthorn64
@suddenlink.net says...

>
> So I ask again: What the heck is the point of this thing?

Launch to any orbit without having to wait nearly as long for launch
window as you have to for a fixed launch site.

If the Air Force stuck a reusable orbital vehicle on top, they'd be in
nirvana. Keeping an orbital vehicle near Stratolaunch's facilities
would mean they could launch on much shorter notice than from a fixed
site in Florida or California.

[JF Mezei]

Based on the graphics I saw, that plane will have an empty spot in the
middle to carry the rocket, a "747" fuselage on the left, and an empty
canoe fuselage on the right.

Would it be possible to forego the left side canoe (saves weight and air
resistance) and simply compensate for asymmetry with control surfaces ?



What if they built a conventional plane with a small fuselage on top of
the wings, and carry the payload under it ? This would make for a more
symmetrical aircraft without needing a fake fuselage on the left for
symmetry.



In terms of load bearing, would the rocket's centre of gravity be at the
wing root (the strongest load bearing) area ? or would they need load
bearing attachements at different points all the way to the tail ?

In other words, can they build rockets that are held horizontally at
their mid point only when there is heavy fuel in stage 1 of the rocket ?

[Andrew Swallow]

On 16/12/2011 04:29, Brian Thorn wrote:
> On Fri, 16 Dec 2011 01:52:34 +0000, Andrew Swallow
> <am.sw...@btinternet.com> wrote:
>
>>> More engines. Stratolaunch has six 747 engines, which probably aren't
>>> much cheaper than the four Merlin 1Cs deleted from Falcon 9 to make
>>> Falcon 5, especially given that SpaceX will have to procure them from
>>> GE or Rolls, not from their own inhouse production line.
>
>> The jet engines and the aircraft are reusable. Currently the Marlin 1Cs
>> are expendable.
>
> For now, yes. Does this mean SpaceX has given up on First Stage
> reusability? They've made a major shift if they have. Only two months
> ago they were showing cool animations of fully reusable Falcon 9s,
> (even the *second* stage) making vertical landings. And that, the fans
> tell us, is what the Grasshopper is being built to test and refine.
>

{snip}

The Stratolaunch is not a SpaceX design so your question's underlying
assumption does not apply. SpaceX has simply found a way to bet on the
rival horse.

Andrew Swallow

[David E. Powell]

I think they are near a boneyard where they are out there. If so that
would be very convenient, like Hot Rodders in the 50s hitting a scrap
yard. Might be cheaper to buy low price old planes with lower time
than buy new gear off the rack, as it were. They'll need good sized
gear for each fuselage, at least from watching their video. It doesn't
look like they are planning B-52 style outrigger wheels on the
wingtips.

[blooggerr]

Video blog :
*http://goo.gl/0hX9s
*




--
blooggerr