Ye Olde Rocket Forum

Go Back   Ye Olde Rocket Forum > Weather-Cocked > FreeForAll
User Name
Password
Auctions Register FAQ Members List Calendar Today's Posts Search Mark Forums Read


Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #1  
Old 06-01-2017, 02:20 PM
blackshire's Avatar
blackshire blackshire is offline
Master Modeler
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Fairbanks, Alaska
Posts: 6,507
Default Stratolaunch rollout!

Hello All,

Paul Allen’s huge twin-fuselage, six-turbofan-powered Stratolaunch aircraft, a general-purpose “flying launch pad,” was rolled out yesterday (see: www.google.com/#q=Stratolaunch ). The aircraft is able to air-launch single or multiple solid propellant or liquid propellant (or hybrid propellant) satellite launch vehicles at jetliner altitudes and speeds, giving them a head-start boost and reducing the drag and gravity losses that ground-launched rockets experience. The Stratolaunch aircraft will also be able to launch orbital space planes (“assisted SSTO [Single-Stage-To-Orbit]” reusable winged spacecraft), which have been designed but not yet built, largely because no suitable launching aircraft was available—until now.
__________________
Black Shire--Draft horse in human form, model rocketeer, occasional mystic, and writer, see:
http://www.lulu.com/content/paperba...an-form/8075185
http://www.lulu.com/product/cd/what...of-2%29/6122050
http://www.lulu.com/product/cd/what...of-2%29/6126511
All of my book proceeds go to the Northcote Heavy Horse Centre www.northcotehorses.com.
NAR #54895 SR
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 06-02-2017, 09:41 AM
luke strawwalker's Avatar
luke strawwalker luke strawwalker is offline
BAR
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Needville and Shiner, TX
Posts: 6,134
Default

I've been rather dubious of the entire Stratolaunch concept from the get-go. Too many problems with it for very little advantage.

Let's just say, "I'll believe it when I see it".

At least his super-plane can be an alternative to Antonov...

Later! OL J R
__________________
The X-87B Cruise Basselope-- THE Ultimate Weapon in the arsenal of Homeland Security and only $52 million per round!
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 06-02-2017, 10:50 AM
Jerry Irvine's Avatar
Jerry Irvine Jerry Irvine is offline
Freeform rocketry advocate.
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Claremont, CA "The intellectual capitol of the world."-WSJ
Posts: 3,780
Default

I asked Burt if I could buy or lease a White Knight 1 for my motors. He only allowed internal projects AND WOULDN'T PAY FOR MOTORS. Stratolaunch has become desperate since the internal motor project has failed continuously. Now they are considering Pegasus and other third party propulsion systems. Finally the plane will actually get used.

I stand ready to produce the motors I quoted for SS1 for current SS2 in 8-12 weeks from order. Can you hear me Scaled Composites?

The benefit of air launch is real.

Just Jerry

Last edited by Jerry Irvine : 06-02-2017 at 11:44 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 06-02-2017, 11:03 AM
Doug Sams's Avatar
Doug Sams Doug Sams is offline
Old Far...er...Rocketeer
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Plano, TX resident since 1998.
Posts: 3,965
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by blackshire
Hello All,

Paul Allen’s huge twin-fuselage, six-turbofan-powered Stratolaunch aircraft, a general-purpose “flying launch pad,” was rolled out yesterday (see: www.google.com/#q=Stratolaunch ). The aircraft is able to air-launch single or multiple solid propellant or liquid propellant (or hybrid propellant) satellite launch vehicles at jetliner altitudes and speeds, giving them a head-start boost and reducing the drag and gravity losses that ground-launched rockets experience. The Stratolaunch aircraft will also be able to launch orbital space planes (“assisted SSTO [Single-Stage-To-Orbit]” reusable winged spacecraft), which have been designed but not yet built, largely because no suitable launching aircraft was available—until now.
I cannot believe the tail booms are not joined. I took one look at that thing and thought it needed a common elevator segment between the booms (ala a P-38 or Twin Mustang). The forces acting on the single mid wing section from the two fuselages must be enormous in turbulent air.

Doug

.
__________________
YORF member #11
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 06-02-2017, 11:06 AM
Jerry Irvine's Avatar
Jerry Irvine Jerry Irvine is offline
Freeform rocketry advocate.
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Claremont, CA "The intellectual capitol of the world."-WSJ
Posts: 3,780
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Doug Sams
I cannot believe the tail booms are not joined. I took one look at that thing and thought it needed a common elevator segment between the booms (ala a P-38 or Twin Mustang). The forces acting on the single mid wing section from the two fuselages must be enormous in turbulent air.
I have seen the structural files. The fuselages are essentially landing gear holders and the centre wing is 3x as strong as it needs to be even considering jerk forces from a bad release. The design is valid. If they could use a dolly for liftoff and skids for landing they would save over 30% the mass and 50% the frontal area. Landing gear is a HUGE overhead.

That design allows for motor ignition from the plane and relanding a non-deployed rocket for mil apps.

Target altitude 50-80k depending on payload mass. Note many engines and huge wings. Not for long haul flights at all.

Last edited by Jerry Irvine : 06-02-2017 at 11:50 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 06-02-2017, 05:21 PM
blackshire's Avatar
blackshire blackshire is offline
Master Modeler
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Fairbanks, Alaska
Posts: 6,507
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by luke strawwalker
I've been rather dubious of the entire Stratolaunch concept from the get-go. Too many problems with it for very little advantage.

Let's just say, "I'll believe it when I see it".

At least his super-plane can be an alternative to Antonov...

Later! OL J R
Air launching provides several advantages that are well worth making use of. The vehicles can use considerably lower-powered first stage rockets because the vehicles are launched horizontally rather than vertically, and wings (such as those on the Pegasus first stage and on air-launched space planes) can assist the ascent trajectory. Such shallow ascent trajectories also greatly reduce the gravity losses on the climbing vehicles.
Plus, the first stage nozzles of stratosphere-launched rockets can be vacuum-optimized for maximum efficiency, and the high subsonic velocity imparted by the launch aircraft gives the vehicles a significant "head start." In addition:

Despite its higher-than-hoped-for unit cost (which its relatively low launch rate, and the high maintenance costs for its old Lockheed L-1011 launch aircraft, combine to cause [its launch rate is gradually increasing as satellite miniaturization becomes easier]), NASA and other users like Pegasus because of the other advantages of air-launching:

The launch times (launch windows) and drop locations are flexible, countdown recycles--with or ^without^ having to land between launch attempts--are easy, right up until the single-use fin actuator batteries are activated seconds before drop (the plane flies a "racetrack" pattern while setting up for the next drop attempt), and Pegasus can literally "come to the customer" for payload integration, which greatly simplifies logistics and saves a lot of money for the satellite owner(s). For smaller space agencies and private satellite firms, this is no small convenience. The importance of this particular advantage became clear when Pegasus launched its first international payload, a Spanish scientific satellite (see: http://www.google.com/#q=Pegasus+wa...+Canary+Islands ), which involved having the L-1011 take off from the Canary Islands.

Up until now, the available launch aircraft have been rather marginal. Over the years, larger expendable air-launched SLVs (and reusable air-launched winged orbital spacecraft) have been designed by Richard Salkeld, Len Cormier, Dan DeLong, Boeing, Teledyne Brown Corporation, and others, but the lack of "stock" aircraft with sufficient performance and structural margins was a large factor in keeping these air-launched designs confined to drawings. (To give two examples, Teledyne Brown's space plane was designed for launch from the back of a 747, but its range and loiter time were very limited, while a Boeing space plane design required its 747 carrier to incorporate a Space Shuttle Main Engine in its tail to provide a boost at launch!)

With a large, "universal" flying launch pad now available, these and other expendable and reusable air-launched space vehicles will now be not just feasible, but practical.
__________________
Black Shire--Draft horse in human form, model rocketeer, occasional mystic, and writer, see:
http://www.lulu.com/content/paperba...an-form/8075185
http://www.lulu.com/product/cd/what...of-2%29/6122050
http://www.lulu.com/product/cd/what...of-2%29/6126511
All of my book proceeds go to the Northcote Heavy Horse Centre www.northcotehorses.com.
NAR #54895 SR
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 06-02-2017, 05:33 PM
Jerry Irvine's Avatar
Jerry Irvine Jerry Irvine is offline
Freeform rocketry advocate.
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Claremont, CA "The intellectual capitol of the world."-WSJ
Posts: 3,780
Default

XS-1 is LOX LH2 to overcome that.
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 06-02-2017, 05:40 PM
blackshire's Avatar
blackshire blackshire is offline
Master Modeler
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Fairbanks, Alaska
Posts: 6,507
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Doug Sams
I cannot believe the tail booms are not joined. I took one look at that thing and thought it needed a common elevator segment between the booms (ala a P-38 or Twin Mustang). The forces acting on the single mid wing section from the two fuselages must be enormous in turbulent air.

Doug

.
White Knight's horizontal stabilizers aren't joined, either. I'm sure that mass, drag, strength, and stiffness were all factors that led the designers of the White Knight and Stratolaunch aircraft to select the "un-joined tail" arrangement. Also, since modern composite materials are so much stronger--yet lighter--than most aircraft metals (*and* can have their load path & strength directions "tailored"), they allow more shape and component arrangement options for aircraft.
__________________
Black Shire--Draft horse in human form, model rocketeer, occasional mystic, and writer, see:
http://www.lulu.com/content/paperba...an-form/8075185
http://www.lulu.com/product/cd/what...of-2%29/6122050
http://www.lulu.com/product/cd/what...of-2%29/6126511
All of my book proceeds go to the Northcote Heavy Horse Centre www.northcotehorses.com.
NAR #54895 SR
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 06-02-2017, 05:48 PM
blackshire's Avatar
blackshire blackshire is offline
Master Modeler
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Fairbanks, Alaska
Posts: 6,507
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jerry Irvine
I have seen the structural files. The fuselages are essentially landing gear holders and the centre wing is 3x as strong as it needs to be even considering jerk forces from a bad release. The design is valid. If they could use a dolly for liftoff and skids for landing they would save over 30% the mass and 50% the frontal area. Landing gear is a HUGE overhead.

That design allows for motor ignition from the plane and relanding a non-deployed rocket for mil apps.

Target altitude 50-80k depending on payload mass. Note many engines and huge wings. Not for long haul flights at all.
Ah--I had wondered why the Stratolaunch aircraft has such long, straight, U-2 / RB-57F (see: www.google.com/#q=RB-57F )-type wings--Stratolaunch (with its long wings and six turbofans) looks like a high-altitude machine. Also:

What does your statement "XS-1 is LOX LH2 to overcome that." in Reply #7 refer to?
__________________
Black Shire--Draft horse in human form, model rocketeer, occasional mystic, and writer, see:
http://www.lulu.com/content/paperba...an-form/8075185
http://www.lulu.com/product/cd/what...of-2%29/6122050
http://www.lulu.com/product/cd/what...of-2%29/6126511
All of my book proceeds go to the Northcote Heavy Horse Centre www.northcotehorses.com.
NAR #54895 SR
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 06-02-2017, 06:11 PM
Jerry Irvine's Avatar
Jerry Irvine Jerry Irvine is offline
Freeform rocketry advocate.
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Claremont, CA "The intellectual capitol of the world."-WSJ
Posts: 3,780
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by blackshire
What does your statement "XS-1 is LOX LH2 to overcome that." in Reply #7 refer to?
XS-1 is a Boing FSTO program to capture DARPA/ DoD funding. I was in the meeting with a M0-7 turbine to sub-space turbofan at DARPA during the government shutdown. They decided already. Now that we have Boeing (predictable), the next step is predictable.

Last edited by Jerry Irvine : 06-10-2017 at 08:31 AM.
Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 12:51 PM.


Powered by: vBulletin Version 3.0.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Ye Olde Rocket Shoppe © 1998-2024