Slashdot Mirror
Paul Allen Launches Commercial Spaceship Project
smitty777 writes "The phrase 'Where do you want to go today?' takes on a whole new meaning as Paul Allen, Microsoft co-founder and the world's 57th richest man in the world, looks to create a new spaceship company. Stratolaunch Systems plans to bring 'airport like operations' to the world of private space travel. Partnering with Burt Rutan, the plan is to field a test within five years and commercially available flights within ten. Spacecraft will be air-launched from a giant, six-engined aircraft. There is more information available on the Stratolaunch homepage."
*crash*
...Department comes:
the world's 57th richest man in the world
Another senile old man with too much time and money on his hands trying to relive the Space Age. It's as dead as he'll be soon. Why doesn't he invest in anti-aging and life extension instead? That can at least benefit more people than just the handful that can afford a 5 minute blip into the upper atmsophere.
To distance himself from Microsoft, eh?
To the Moon, Alice!
A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
Space does not begin at an altitude of 100km. Space begins at a velocity of 7km/s.
http://www.airlaunch.ru/index.htm
and their buddies.
hey, this is money well spent. those billionaires work hard for their space travel. they deserve a break every now and then.
--
"It is now safe to switch off your computer."
in the world of the world!
Paul Allen for the money spigot, Burt Rutan for the carrier aircraft, and Elon Musk/SpaceX for the rocket stages. When I worked on such concepts many years ago at Boeing, we generally found that launching from altitude like that doubles the payload compared to the same rocket starting from the ground, so it makes a lot of sense from an engineering and cost sense, as long as the carrier aircraft costs less than the rocket stages per flight (normally easy to do).
This design overcomes one limitation we had at Boeing, which was the 747 was not quite large enough in it's current form. By going to six engines of the same size as the 747 uses, they solved that problem. Eventually they can also look at flying back the first rocket stage, for even more savings. Once it is empty of fuel, the rocket stage does not weigh much, so it would not take much in the way of wings, landing gear, and some small jet engines so it can fly to a landing. Without knowing how far it will go on a ballistic arc doing it's launch job, it is hard to say if it should fly back to the launch site, or fly forward to another landing location.
Builds America's next space shuttle and its a doozie.
For a long time I have wondered why we don't just use massive helium balloons to carry rockets much closer to space. Even if the balloon only gets a quarter of the way to orbit, it gets through the thickest air before the rocket fires.
Unless helium is more expensive than rocket fuel, but helium can be collected from alpha decay right, so it seems like it would be cheaper.
Even if it isn't feasible for big payloads, there are several high class hobbyist rockets out there that can reach 100k feet. Why not ride a balloon up to 70-80k, and then launch the rocket?
I never want to under-estimate Rutan, but he wants to glue two 747 fuselages together and have them flying in 5 years? Like, above houses where people live? Okey doke.
Personally, I was stunned the first time I saw a space shuttle astride a 747. Looked completely ungainly, but those babies have some carrying capacity!
I curious why they don't latch onto some old B52s and bring them up to date. Quite amazing themselves.
A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
Written in the clouds, "Where do you want to return to today?".
Just so many "blue screen of death" jokes, it's hard to choose.
Having your own space flight company seems to be the new fad among todays ultra elites.
I suppose it's better than yachting.
Any patents filed on this by Paul Allen yet? Quick, what have we got for prior art?
How about a wide variety of designs through aviation history in which smaller piloted aircraft are launched from larger ones while airborne, not to mention the X-1 through X-15 programs and of course the Yokosuka MXY7 Ohka.
I deny that I have not avoided attaining the opposite of that which I do not want.
Stratolaunch Systems? ...stratosphere? That won't even get you into LEO.
Yeah, yeah, it was just a model, but they had the concept down 41 years ago:
http://www.ninfinger.org/rockets/nostalgia/70estf.html
http://www.ninfinger.org/rockets/nostalgia/70est020.html
...perhaps we should have some better places to go? All these companies are spending $ to be able to fly rich idiots into low earth orbit. So what's the next step? the ISS? Oh wait, that's not going to be around much longer. The moon? Well China will most likely be there by the time everyone else is ready. Where else?
Fact is, we don't have the technology to reach even out into our own solar system, let alone anywhere REALLY meaningful (such as some of those "Goldilocks" planets we see millions of light years away but can't hope to get anything other than pictures of). Face it, the private space initiative if crap. It's something for the super-rich to spend their money on. Meanwhile the people who have actually been dreaming of space flight or venturing outside of our solar system, for more than the cheap thrill these private "space flight" companies are offering, for their entire lives are stuck at home in a 9-5 without any hope of being able to pay the cost of entry to the lowest form of space flight possible, or available, to the average person (a.k.a. NOT astronauts).
Instead of this, they should be pooling their money into R&D and backing NASA to help develop the tech we need to GET OFF THIS ROCK and really explore the universe. I hate to sound like a broken record, but we literally know NOTHING about the universe we live in. How can $20,000 - $200,000 (depending on who you go with and when) for a few minutes of weightlessness be what the world is happy with? I for one expected more out of human ambition and curiosity.
"I hope you know how very lucky you are to know me, because I am so incredibly incredible."
Where do you want to be strip searched today?
... for his administration making the policy and (I presume) regulatory changes that have allowed this flowering of commercial space transportation.
We'll never beat the Chinese on labor costs. But I imagine Chinese bureaucracies are as inefficient at American ones so putting their government up against our entrepreneurs gives us a chance.
The launch aircraft has enough range to transport the rocket to an equatorial launch point, which I've read can allow up to a 25% increase in payload
.This might improve on the project's economic chances.
I thought the same thing. I'm sure the attorney's are working their fingertips to the bone for Allen.
Group 1: Filling out patent applications.
Group 2: Filing law suites and CD orders against NASA and SpaceX for their launch platforms.
Fuck Paul Allen.
Screw him and his 'all you code are belong to us' brigade
I would be interested in a breakdown of the advantages of such launch technology. I understand the flexibility aspect, and the advantage of moving toward the equator - although that is only a plus for certain launch trajectories. How much is saved by starting at altitude? What is the value of starting at 500 mph? How does this all affect the bottom line? Adding a reusable first stage is nice, but are we talking 10% savings? 20? I saw nothing about the real economics on the trite website.
Mach 6 at 60,000 feet gives you 6% of the energy you need to to orbit. A carrier airplane isn't worth the effort.
Nobody wants to tell him that because...why turn off the money? Another thing poor old Paul isn`t being told:
Q: How do you make a small fortune in aerospace?
A: Start with a large fortune.
These guys are all playing...like the hot-air balloonists who were playing around while Orville and Wilbur were doing the real deal. What the brothers did was hard. Think of it in modern terms: what if there were two guys, one who could cobble together the hardware software and physics to simulate hypersonic flow, and the other guy who could beg borrow steal or pyrolize enough carbon/carbon and titanium to make a scram SSTO. It's almost unimaginable, just like what Orville and Wilbur did. We don't yet know if those two guys will ever exist.
Equine Mammals Are Considerably Smaller
Orbital Systems would seem to have lots of prior art w.r.t. the Pegasus rocket...
It's "What do you want to do today?" you fucking morons.
This has paul allen behind it, not bill gates or MS.
So I guess his patent troll profits are being used for something...
"Sometimes a woman is a kind of religion, she can save your soul & set you free from all your sins" - Bad Examples
How soon will Allen put money into something like Bigelow or IDC Dover? Basically, to make this profitable, he will want to have multiple destinations to go to. Of course, they could rent out the carrier since it will have some impressive cargo capability.
But I really think that Allen's goal is to do for Space what Allen's charter did for internet over cable, or musk's tesla did for electric cars. Allen will likely want to hurry BA or IDC along.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
the reason is that the real costs of space systems are human costs and system costs. Humans are easy to lower esp. when you have a system rigged for that. Well, aviation is rigged for that. Likewise, when you take the expensive portion, the first stage and make it a re-usable airplane, you change the economics dramatically. Will this be more efficient in terms of energy? I seriously doubt it. However, at some point, we will have hypersonic flight in which crafts are doing mach 10 or more at 90K feet. If this can become the next stage, then we are looking at cheap access to space. Probably cheaper than skylon.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
Anyone else notice that the fuselage has a passing similarity in appearance to the Howard Hughes Herculese (Spruce Goose as it was insultingly called too).
The fact is that the amount of LOX to get to 50K/500 MPH is not that much. The real ECONOMIC issue is re-usability. As it is, the spaceX rocket appears to be an F 5, not an F9.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
Pegasus was simply grabbing a USAF/NASA project and scaling it down (both in size and economics). They used an L-1011 and creating that. The problem is that Orbital designed poorly. OTH, Scaled has done a number of launches from their system and showed that it worked well. As such, Allen is willing to fund it. I am also going to guess that within 1 year, we will hear that he is funding Bigelow or IDC Dover to put a private space station.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
- Build rocket ship that gets to the edge of space - DONE - SpaceShip One, 2004
- Own a company named after Star Trek universe - DONE - Vulcan, Inc is mine, all mine!
- Lose $8 billion when cable company goes bust - DONE - Charter Communications, 2009
- Build the world's largest trebuchet - IN PROGRESS - Stratolaunch, ~2015
(Info on bucket list from WSJ article http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203518404577096493595261190.html?mod=djemTECH_h)
If you think you can, or you think you can't, you're right. (Adapted from Henry Ford)
Just saw an interview on the news with Burt and Paul. Paul made a point of saying he would not be one of the first to go up. In fact he would wait for many launches before he would go. I guess he learned something from his time at Microsoft!
Not even close. Orbital got their tech from NASA/USAF. The ability to drop a vehicle was pioneered back in the 50's. And all that orbital did was use a dead L-1011 and somebody else's rocket (after all, OSC develops NOTHING).
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
If somebody like gates will pour some money into it, but do it in the west, rather than China, perhaps we can get some thing going.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
www.stratolaunch.com is running Apache on Linux :)
http://www.buran.ru/htm/aviager.htm
747-400 engines have thrust between 265 and 282 kN (depending on engine model). 777 engines have thrust between 338 and 514 kN. You can get more thrust out of four 777 engines than you can six 747 engines. The design has a high wing, so engine diameter isn't an issue. Why use six engines instead of four?
(A330 and A380 engines have only a small advantage over 747, at 310-320 kN.)
The 747-400 has been around 6 more years than the 777, and 747-300 much longer again. Maybe they can get six used 747 engines much cheaper than four used 777 engines. As a low-usage aircraft, it makes sense to have increased maintenance costs if it saves enough on capital costs.
Quattuor res in hoc mundo sanctae sunt: libri, liberi, libertas et liberalitas.
Hmm yeah that makes sense. I guess that's why Burt is out there building rocketplanes and making millions of dollars, and slashdot posters are... doing whatever it is they do in their basement :P
Googling for some data here -- a 747 weighs about 400,000 pounds empty and can carry its own weight, so a six-engine 747 should be able to haul 600,000 pounds.
Now a Falcon 9 weighs 735,000 pounds at launch, with a 23,000 pound payload -- 3.1%. With some Rutan composite skillz the Stratolaunch plane should be able to carry a Falcon 9. With the 3% fuel savings from air launching, the payload doubles to 46,000 pounds! Pretty damn good, I'd say.
Virgin Galactic was suppose to be providing comercial flights back in 2007 if I recall. So what's the hold up?
why not reduce the weight even more by making it basically a drone jet plane... that launches the rocket.
have the rocket pilot fly it up initially (or even have it all done by a drone pilot).. release and fire the rockets and then have one of those drone pilots return the jet plane..
the design seems like it is searching for every inch of thrust.. against what it is carrying... lighten the load further by making it a drone. a big one.
Commendable initiative, however, the dumbest thing I ever saw.
Somebody should tell them that "glue-ing" two 747s it is a much more complex engineering endeavor that it looks......and it might never fly.