Microsoft Co-Founder Paul Allen Unveils World's Biggest Plane (seattletimes.com)

Frosty Piss quotes a report from The Seattle Times: The huge Stratolaunch finally rolled out of its hangar in Mojave, Calif., Wednesday for the first time. Built by Paul Allen's Scaled Composites, the twin hulled monster will go through months of ground tests before a first flight. Jean Floyd, chief executive at Stratolaunch Systems, said in a statement that the empty airplane, powered by six used 747 engines, weighs approximately 500,000 pounds. The jet will have a three-person crew: pilot, co-pilot and flight engineer in the flight deck of the starboard fuselage, while the port fuselage cockpit is empty and unpressurized. Stratolaunch is intended to carry a rocket slung beneath the central part of the wing, between the two fuselages, and release it at 35,000 feet. The concept is that the rocket will then launch into space and deliver satellites into orbit.

Comments

How about an actual website?

[drinkypoo]

TFA doesn't load at all if you don't permit Javascript, because it is not a web page. Wired is offering an actual web page on the same subject, which is more suitable for linking to a site for nerds like Slashdot, where noscript is common.

Re:How about an actual website?

[Dunbal]

No, YOU aren't going to like the web, when your computer is constantly pwned and you're constantly doxxed and having your ID stolen.

Re:How about an actual website?

[volodymyrbiryuk]

Or you could just make an exception for this website and at least temporarily allow the relevant javascript.

Re:How about an actual website?

[drinkypoo]

Or you could just make an exception for this website and at least temporarily allow the relevant javascript.

I could, but that would be senselessly rewarding the incompetent and/or unscrupulous bastards who hid their content behind code they want to run on my PC. Instead, I'll go visit someone who can manage to produce a proper web page.

Re:How about an actual website?

[ebonum]

Wired's anti-blocking software blocks the site.

Google cache:
https://webcache.googleusercon...

Re:How about an actual website?

[dreamchaser]

You are an idiot if you blindly accept that.

Re:How about an actual website?

[maroberts]

But its not a matter of blind acceptance. Websites are increasingly "apps" for mobile devices, using a lot of JavaScript to load content on demand and to minimise the actual content loaded. Unless HTML6 introduces some new ideas for loading partial pages and components, with perhaps similar security risks, everyone is going to have to accept that noscript is not going to fly on most sites.

Re:How about an actual website?

[lgw]

In the days of dial-up, there were already good ways to " to load content on demand and to minimize the actual content loaded". For example, hyperlinks.

Re:How about an actual website?

[ColdWetDog]

NoScript already doesn't fly on most pages. It is truly a niche product that puts a large part of the web off limits. The large part of the web that wants to load stuff from 20 different sites just to serve up a paragraph of text and some generic image with tits.

It is getting pretty ugly already.

And don't get me started about mobile 'browsing'.

Off my lawn if you don't mind. I want to take a nap.

rich people and the space race 2.0

[Anonymous Coward]

must be nice to be able to afford to play 'space launch simulator 2'

us normal folks will have to wait for the pirated version.

Re:rich people and the space race 2.0

[Dunbal]

Richard Branson is failing pretty hard with this one. In the time it took them to design and build this aircraft SpaceX has developed its reusable booster and heck even Amazon has been to space now. All Scaled Composites has to show for the millions invested and the time invested is a suborbital flight and a rather spectacular failure.

Re: rich people and the space race 2.0

[Dunbal]

I generally find it counterproductive to argue with retards. "Against fools the gods themselves argue in vain"

Re: rich people and the space race 2.0

[lgw]

He was talking about Blue Origin, Bezos' aerospace company, you thickwit.

Ah, I see, but he fucked up and said "Amazon" instead, which is about as accurate as saying the Washington Post went to space (I'd pay to see that).

Re: rich people and the space race 2.0

[maggard]

If your satellite launch fails your next insurance premium goes up and its that much harder to find future commercial customers. If your passengers die your license will be pulled and insurance will be unaffordable, not to mention your customers decide yours is an experience they can skip. Fundamentally different markets. Different customers, different services, different requirements (human-rated etc.)

Construction materials?

[Cheviot]

Is it made of spruce?

Re:Construction materials?

[Imrik]

It made me sad that there was no mention of the Spruce Goose in the article. If you're going to write an article about breaking a record, the least you could do is mention the previous record holder.

Re:Construction materials?

[Deadstick]

The function of an airplane is to carry a load. On that basis, the Antonov An-225 beats the Goose by a factor of 5, and it beats the Stratolaunch by 1.5.

Furthermore, the Goose never demonstrated true airplane flight. It never reached an altitude of more than 1/5 of a wingspan, which means it was flying mostly on ground effect -- and as a ground-effect machine, the Soviet "Caspian Sea Monster" beat its load numbers by a factor of more than 4.

Re:Construction materials?

[Dutch Gun]

Oh, you silly goose!

Re:Construction materials?

[chuckugly]

Chekov? Is that you?

Re:Construction materials?

[quenda]

"Look at that subtle colouring. The tasteful thickness of the fuselage."

"Oh my God. It even has a watermark."

Re:Construction materials?

[drinkypoo]

Give me 30 years newer engines, then we'll worry about the Spruce Goose's capacities.
Well, actually, give me 80 years, no reason to hold back. It'd be easier to build a new one from scratch than convert the old.

So to be clear, build a totally different plane to prove that the old plane would have flown?

Re:Construction materials?

[Reziac]

Under that definition, military craft and fire-fighting planes are all in trouble...

Re:Construction materials?

[Reziac]

I had the exact same thought. :)

My next thought was... what's the structural integrity of that long center cross-member under the inevitable flex while in the air?? And does it really need to be that wide??

Re:Construction materials?

[ebvwfbw]

Nah, another billionaire made that mistake.

Surprised, he chose aluminum

[140Mandak262Jamuna]

The tradition has always been using wood to make large planes for billionaires in california.

Re:Surprised, he chose aluminum

[Dunbal]

I hope the booster won't set it on fire when it launches...

Snap!

[Tomahawk]

It's it just me, or does it look like it'll snap in two in the middle-wing section between the 2 fuselages.

Strange design. It'll be interesting to see it fly...

Re:Snap!

[PolygamousRanchKid]

Strange design.

I dunno . . . I think I saw a similar critter on one of Gerry Anderson's show . . . "Thunderbirds" or "U.F.O."

It'll be interesting to see it fly...

Be sure to look close, to see if you can spot puppet wires holding it up.

Re:Snap!

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeh because nobody could posdibly calculate the stresses, and bulid an appropriate spar. Even for a shit poster, you are a dumb cunt.

Re:Snap!

[Anonymous Coward]

Remember this when the crash and deaths make the news. And you, as the engineer will be responsible.

Re:Snap!

[thegarbz]

Exactly. That thing will snap in half the moment it leaves the ground. If it does survive being airborne, it will never survive a landing.

Why? Justify your comment with an explaination. And before you do so remember the following:

1. Vertical forces pull a wing up. All wings bend in service. Twin-fuselage planes simply have an additional weight on the wing as seen from each fuselage, what this means in practice is that the the wing joining the two fuselages will see *less* stress than those on the outside or those of typical planes.

2. When landing all force is centred on the wheels which are directly under the heaviest parts of the plane. Again the joining wing will see the least stress of any parts.

3. Twin-fuselage is a thing and there have been over 30 designs of such planes built for various purposes including military, cargo, and most recently launching of a secondary vehicle.

4. Not only will it not snap, but due to the little stress involved you would quite comfortably carry another aircraft in the middle, a design that has been successfully used by White Knight 2.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... - there's a picture of it flying.

Re:Snap!

[thegarbz]

It's it just me, or does it look like it'll snap in two in the middle-wing section between the 2 fuselages.

Strange design. It'll be interesting to see it fly...

It always does, but non the less twin-fuselage planes are a thing and have successfully flown various times over the past century, most recently as White Knight 2.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

And here's a video of it taking off: https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

Re:Snap!

[Agripa]

The important part is concealed beneath the center wing surfaces; it is unlikely to just be a girded tube subject to failure in buckling. My guess is that there will be some sort of box girder structure connected to a similar structure inside the fuselages and none of the load bearing structures are visible. The heavy cargo attachments will also be connected directly to this structure.

This removes the uncertainty of using a thin walled tube which will fail all at once. A box girder structure can be redundant and easy to inspect.

Re:Snap!

[Gussington]

Where are my mod points :)

Re:Snap!

[Gussington]

Exactly. That thing will snap in half the moment it leaves the ground. If it does survive being airborne, it will never survive a landing.

Why? Justify your comment with an explaination.

I'll justify it on his/her behalf: http://dictionary.cambridge.or...

Re:Snap!

[thegarbz]

Sarcasm and ignorance have many of the same features in their most basic form. Never consider a sentence as sarcasm unless it is perfectly clear that it is so as you would be masking a large underlying problem in communication and understanding.

Re:Snap!

[Gussington]

I believe the phrase is 'whooosh!". Best to stop digging now...

Re:Snap!

[thegarbz]

I believe the phrase is 'whooosh!".

Then you are using it incorrectly. Whooosh is used when someone missed something incredibly obvious to all, not when someone is unable to articulate and someone else misunderstands.

Best to stop digging now...

Why? How else will I get down to your level?

Re:Snap!

[Gussington]

Whooosh is used when someone missed something incredibly obvious to all,

You truly are the gift that keeps on giving

Uh. Until it flies.

[Chas]

It's the world's largest garage queen and not a plane...

Going to Mars

[110010001000]

I thought we were all going to Mars. It turns out the rich just want to deliver more satellites. What a waste of time. Use a regular rocket, Paul.

Too Much Money

[Rob Lister]

This is what happens when your money piles up on you. I won't predict it will never fly, but I'll bet it never does anything useful.

Re:Too Much Money

[thegarbz]

Yeah god forbid people spend money on making something real that sometimes creates a whole new industry. I mean look at all those other failures. Damn them for creating businesses that provide gainful employment and research into something new.

I mean there's so many better things to spend money on.

35,000 ft?

[ebonum]

The International Space Station is at about 1,320,000 feet. Knocking the first 35,000 feet off is the first 2.5% of the way.

Seems like a lot of complexity where a lot can go wrong to launch a rocket (mind you, pointed in the wrong direction, space is up, not sideways. My guess is that that huge plane can't safely do a loop. ) to knock off the first 2.5% of the journey.

I'm not a rocket scientist. What am I missing here?

Re:35,000 ft?

[religionofpeas]

space is up, not sideways

Actually space is mostly sideways. https://what-if.xkcd.com/58/

But I agree that the extra complexity from a plane launch is probably not worth the trouble.

Re:35,000 ft?

[Richard_at_work]

Density of the atmosphere ...

Cutting out those first 35,000ft cuts down significantly on the air density, meaning less drag on the booster, meaning less propellant needed etc etc etc.

Re:35,000 ft?

[ebonum]

Numbers please?

Re:35,000 ft?

[religionofpeas]

Another advantage is that you can launch in bad weather, and that you can use an engine configuration optimized for lower air density.

Re:35,000 ft?

[Richard_at_work]

Sea level air density is 12.25, while at 30,000ft it is 0.1841.

http://www.engineeringtoolbox....

Re:35,000 ft?

[RackinFrackin]

mind you, pointed in the wrong direction, space is up, not sideways.

To get into orbit, you need more sideways speed than up speed. Look up Newton's Cannoball.

Re:35,000 ft?

[mysticgoat]

The height is not the major problem. When the ISS passes over your head, it is less than 250 miles away from you, if it were on the ground you could drive to it in half a day. The major problem is getting to orbital velocity. A rocket's payload has to be accelerated to 17,700 mph in the right direction to achieve orbit. Allen's Stratolaunch will provide the first 3% of that speed. Compared to a traditional 10 ton rocket to place 1 ton in LEO, there would be a savings of 0.25 tons of rocket fuel. Since Stratolaunch is designed to launch three rockets per trip, there are considerable savings in preparation and maintenance costs. And of course jet fuel is much less expensive than rocket fuel, especially when you consider the special handling rocket fuels require. Air launch to orbit make a lot of sense.

Re:35,000 ft?

[religionofpeas]

A rocket's payload has to be accelerated to 17,700 mph in the right direction to achieve orbit. Allen's Stratolaunch will provide the first 3% of that speed

One of the problems is that the rocket still needs to gain a lot of altitude at the point of release. The Pegasus uses a small wing to turn the rocket, and convert the horizontal speed into vertical speed. The wing adds extra mass, so it's not free.

And of course jet fuel is much less expensive than rocket fuel, especially when you consider the special handling rocket fuels require

According to figures on Wikipedia, a pegasus launch costs $56 million, and it can take 997 pounds to LEO. A Falcon 9 launch costs $62 million, and it can take a entire Pegasus rocket (40000 pounds) to LEO, and then land the booster again, using only $200k worth of fuel.

Re:35,000 ft?

[Brett Buck]

You aren't missing much. Altitude is a minor issue, it's delta-V that matters. People have been studying similar ideas for years (like 60 years), and the value in terms of energy expended is negligible. Orbital is already launching from an airplane in similar circumstances, from the bottom of an existing airplane (L-1011). This is just a scaled-up version of the same thing.

Where the value, perhaps minimal, lies, is in launch date/time flexibility. If you launch it from the ground into a polar or inclined orbit, and want it to be in a particular orbit plane, you have to wait until the launch site lines up with it, which makes for narrow launch windows and limited launch window opportunities. If you can just fly to the right place, you can launch any day/time.

          I haven't bother to follow this particular effort, but very similar ideas were floating around in the "little LEO" era where there were all sorts of ideas, maybe even involving some Microsoft idiots, about launching giant networks of tiny spacecraft into low polar orbits to replace cell phone towers, provide internet service, etc (like Iridium). For that, you want launch-on-demand or extreme flexibility with relatively low "throw weight" requirements. If you can get past the basic flaws with the network idea, this is an OK solution.

          Of course, among the flaws is the fact that all these spacecraft flying around at more-or-less the same altitude greatly raise the possibility of a collision, which creates debris, which causes more collisions, creating more debris, etc, in a cascade of collisions which wipes out the entire constellation (and everything else that happens to get in the way, which at the altitudes they tend to use (low to get better signal strength at the ground so you can us a handset) is a lot of other things) in relatively short order.

          We'll see what they end up doing. I would be surprised if this has any consequential effect on average launch costs, and no one has made any significant breakthroughs with basic issues associated with little LEO constellations since Iridium, so we'll see, I suppose.

Re:35,000 ft?

[phayes]

Launching a rocket OK, but taking off & landing this monstrosity in anything but sunny/no wind is likely to be verboten. As the runways they will need will be highly UNcommon (to the point of there only being the one) if there is any possibility that winds will come up between take-off and landing, it'll be a scrub.

Re:35,000 ft?

[religionofpeas]

It helps a lot that you can launch from California instead of Florida.

Re:35,000 ft?

[mysticgoat]

The gain in altitude comes mostly from the horizontal acceleration as Earth "falls away" beneath the rocket. The wings on Pegasus provided aerodynamic lift and were not used to "convert the horizontal speed into vertical speed". That would be a silly waste of velocity. Note that the Shuttle bends to a horizontal attitude soon after lift-off. So do all other rockets to orbit.

All you need to get to orbit is 17,770 mph ground speed, and it doesn't matter whether you apply that from ground ---maybe using a rail gun--- or you go up a little ways first. Of course there are advantages in using aerodynamic lift (basically horizontal flight) and in getting above the troposphere asap. But those things just make it easier to get to 17,770 mph ground speed.

Re:35,000 ft?

[joe_frisch]

It helps due to less air density. Its a bit tricky:

If you try to build a very small orbital vehicle, air drag is a major factor. This means that for sea level launches, rockets need to be quite large. By starting with 1/5 the pressure, the rocket can in principal be 1/5 the size (if nothing else is limiting) so very much lighter. Air launch makes small orbital vehicles more practical.

Another effect is that the efficiency (specific impulse) of rocket engines is better with lower atmospheric pressure. So the engines on an air launched rocket provide more delta-V for the same fuel.

Neither of these is a huge factor, but they help. The idea makes physics sense. Whether or not it makes economic sense is a different question (it may)

Re:35,000 ft?

[religionofpeas]

In this launch video you can clearly see it curves upward. https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

That would be a silly waste of velocity.

Not quite. Trading horizontal speed for altitude gets you quicker out of the atmosphere, where there's less drag. There's an optimal curve, and it's not a matter of going purely horizontal until the Earth "falls away". Quoting Elon Musk:

When you drop...the rocket, you have the slight problem that you're not going the right direction. If you look at what Orbital Sciences did with Pegasus, they have a delta wing to do the turn maneuver but then you've got this big wing that's added a bunch of mass and you've able to mostly, but not entirely, convert your horizontal velocity into vertical velocity, or mostly vertical velocity, and the net is really not great.

Quoting Wikipedia:

After five seconds of free-fall, the first stage ignites and the vehicle pitches up. The 45-degree delta wing (of carbon composite construction and double-wedge airfoil) aids pitch-up and provides some lift

Re:35,000 ft?

[DanielRavenNest]

> I'm not a rocket scientist. What am I missing here?

It so happens I am - see my space systems engineering book for proof ( http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/S... )

Launching from a carrier airplane at 10 km altitude approximately doubles the payload compared to the same rocket starting from the ground. The Pegasus rocket launched from an L-1011 airplane showed this. You can watch a SpaceX launch video to understand why. It takes a Falcon 9 about 1 minute to reach 10 km altitude and Mach 1, which is about the conditions for an air-launch. During this time, the first stage consumes about 45% of the fuel it carries. The flight to this point has been more vertical than horizontal. When you are thrusting upwards, it is counter to the Earth's gravity, so the acceleration is less than if you were thrusting horizontally. You are also fighting drag, and the back-pressure of the Earth's atmosphere. When you start at altitude, and oriented mostly horizontal, all these forces reducing your performance are minimized. So the fuel you burn is used more efficiently, resulting in more payload than just the avoided fuel burn from the first stage. The net result is about a doubling of payload.

So what good is this? Airplanes fly many many times, so the cost of the plane is divided by the number of times you fly it. In fact, this airplane recycles parts from two used 747's, so it cost less to build than an entirely new one would. The 500,000 lb of drop mass it can lift can include a reusable first stage rocket, and a fairly small second stage. This would reduce the throw-away hardware for each flight dramatically.

The first version of this plane will be carrying new Pegasus rockets, like the old L-1011 did. I think that's because Paul Allen has put limited amounts of his money into this project. Once they get the plane working, the next step would be to develop the rocket stage. It's possible they would look for outside funding or partners for that part. From a business standpoint, their problem is the airplane part took so long to develop, that they have two serious competitors already building reusable rockets (SpaceX and Blue Origin). A carrier plane has some advantages over a fixed launch site, like being able to avoid bad weather, and a wider range of launch times and inclinations. It can also serve other markets, like oversize cargo delivery. But I see it as a "come from behind" situation for space launch.

Re:35,000 ft?

[ceoyoyo]

Rockets don't work that way. The fuel use is exponential, not linear: shaving off the first 3% reduces fuel requirements by more than 3%. You also get benefits from saved gravity losses from being at higher altitude already and less drag and ability to use a more efficient engine design from having lower starting air pressure.

Re:35,000 ft?

[StevenMaurer]

Allen's Stratolaunch will provide the first 3% of that speed. Compared to a traditional 10 ton rocket to place 1 ton in LEO, there would be a savings of 0.25 tons of rocket fuel. Since Stratolaunch is designed to launch three rockets per trip, there are considerable savings in preparation and maintenance costs. And of course jet fuel is much less expensive than rocket fuel, especially when you consider the special handling rocket fuels require. Air launch to orbit make a lot of sense.

It actually makes even more sense than that, because fuel burn to acceleration it's not linear. Getting a rocket from 0 to 100 MPH takes up a massively disproportionate amount of fuel, because not only does your thrust have to accelerate the rocket, it also has to accelerate the rest of the fuel and the container for that fuel that you're about to burn as well. I would have to check the numbers to get an exact estimate, but it almost certainly could shave at least a ton of fuel and more likely two tons. The rocket doesn't have to be quite as sturdy in terms of resisting aerodynamic pressure as well, given that you're taking off about about 80% of the atmosphere.

This is all described in the Rocket equation

. (As an additional "fun" fact, any trip to a "super earth" with a diameter 50% greater than our earth would be literally impossible to leave, at least with chemical propellants.)

Re:35,000 ft?

[mysticgoat]

True enough. In talking about horizontal speed, I was oversimplifying by ignoring atmospheric drag, which remains a critical factor until about 300,000 feet. I was justified in so doing since the post I was responding to was talking about accelerating straight up as the only requirement to getting to orbit.

On a planet with the mass of Earth and no atmosphere, a horizontal acceleration to 17,770 mph would achieve a (very low) orbit. On the other hand, if we built a levitation device that would take a satellite from Earth's surface to LEO, we would have to move far out of the way when it came crashing back down. You do need 300,000 feet height to clear almost all the atmosphere, but you still need 17,770 mph to achieve an orbit. And as Rutan showed us in Spaceship One, you can get outside of the atmosphere with a lot less fuel than it takes to get into orbit.

Re:35,000 ft?

[drinkypoo]

I would have guessed that giving it some momentum was actually more valuable than avoiding atmospheric friction, especially since that decreases as you gain altitude. However, I am clearly not a mathematician. I wonder how the two effects compare.

Re: 35,000 ft?

[Anonymous Coward]

Wow, imagine if somewhere out there there's another civilization, but their planet is more masaive and it's harder to get to orbit. Alternatively, maybe someone else has a much less massive planet where getting to space is much easier.

Fist satellites, later way stations.

[Humbubba]

I have high hopes for the 'Deuce Goose' launching spacecraft from mid-air. The B52 launched the X15 from under its wing, and that panned out. This has the potential of drastically reducing the price of getting off the planet and thus re-starting the space race.

Re:Fist satellites, later way stations.

[Richard_at_work]

Launching rockets into space from an aircraft is not a new idea, Orbital Sciences have been doing it since 1994 with an old Lockheed Tristar...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

Re:Fist satellites, later way stations.

[religionofpeas]

Reducing the price of the launch comes with reuse of the rocket. Launching it from a plane isn't going to help much.

Re:Fist satellites, later way stations.

[Humbubba]

Good Point. My point is that in 1963 the X-15 reached 105.9 km (65.8 miles) into the Thermosphere, past the Karman line, and technically outer space.

Re:Fist satellites, later way stations.

[Richard_at_work]

The X-15 was suborbital though - great for site seeing and tourists, not all that great for anything practical :)

Re:Fist satellites, later way stations.

[religionofpeas]

If you launch from a plane you can use a much smaller rocket - hence the cost savings.

If you can reuse the rocket, it doesn't matter much if it's bigger. And the difference apparently isn't that great. According the Musk, you only save about 5% by launching from a plane[1]. Add the cost of the plane itself, the more complicated launch, plus the fact that you'll be limited to small rockets and payloads, and it's clear why they didn't choose this path.

[1] http://shitelonsays.com/transc...

Re:Fist satellites, later way stations.

[Anonymous Coward]

Reducing the price of the launch comes with reuse of the rocket. Launching it from a plane isn't going to help much.

Says the person who fails to realize the plane IS the (first stage) of the rocket.

Getting the payload 7 miles up gets it past about 98% of the atmosphere (~12kg->0.2kg). It also gets it from 0-500mph or so.

Both of those facts means the rocket needs less fuel, which means it can be smaller, which means it can use even less fuel, which means.. you, well, non-idiots, get the point. That point is that it doesn't need to be a 50' diameter rocket that's 10 stories tall with crazy heavy fuel systems that create exponential size increases. It can be a solid propellant cruise missile sized object.

Shit, just think of moving a 200# safe. Carrying it 100' up a hill is a bitch, but if someone lifts it up for your first, lets you get a grip and gives you a push, it's a lot easier to get it there without throwing your back out on the initial lift.

Re:Fist satellites, later way stations.

[Humbubba]

Richard_at_work said

The X-15 was suborbital though - great for site seeing and tourists, not all that great for anything practical :)

I'm not getting into a Skunk Works vs Wernher von Braun fracas. I'll concede to reality.

Re:Fist satellites, later way stations.

[acrimonious howard]

If you launch from a plane you can use a much smaller rocket - hence the cost savings.

If you can reuse the rocket, it doesn't matter much if it's bigger. ... save about 5% by launching from a plane .... Add the cost of the plane itself, the more complicated launch, plus the fact that you'll be limited to small rockets and payloads ....

I think both are right - the Musk route solved the larger general problem, while Balmer is filling a niche of smaller payloads with more aggressive deadlines (see more convenient launch windows due to location and weather already mentioned elsewhere). Kudos to both and the free market :)

Re:Fist satellites, later way stations.

[Agripa]

I thought I remembered reading about a plan for a 1/3rd larger X-15 that could have made an orbital flight.

Re:Fist satellites, later way stations.

[david_thornley]

There's a really big difference between reaching space and reaching orbit, about 8 km/s worth if I remember correctly. The X-15 flight is almost completely irrelevant here.

Re:Fist satellites, later way stations.

[david_thornley]

500mph is trivial compared to orbital speed.

Re:Fist satellites, later way stations.

[Humbubba]

david_thornley said

There's a really big difference between reaching space and reaching orbit, about 8 km/s worth if I remember correctly. The X-15 flight is almost completely irrelevant here.

True enough, but considering the X-15 reached space in 1963, I believe it demonstrates the potential for reaching orbit with similar techniques, and the right tech. I really don't want to get into the 'what if' department, especially after what Ben Rich said, so let me hang up my spurs on this one. But if you're interested in some pretty wild-ass space flight stuff, look up this guy. Rich is the 'Father of Stealth' and the 2nd director of Skunkwork's - where the X-15 came from.

Billionaire's Toy

[nukenerd]

Another billionaire's toy. It must be hard not knowing how to get rid of that money. Why didn't Brewster think of this idea? At least there is none of my money in it - I've never bought any Microsoft stuff.

But perhaps he got the money from sueing the World plus Dog http://www.theregister.co.uk/2...

Landing

[ebonum]

You fly up with a rocket tied to you. Rocket basically = HUGE bomb. For whatever reason, you can't launch. How do you land safely with something so heavy and explosive still tied to the plan?

Re:Landing

[drinkypoo]

How do you land safely with something so heavy and explosive still tied to the plan?

Probably the same way you take off with it. Wings, engines, thrust... you know the drill.

Re:Landing

[ebonum]

If you take off in a 747 and then you want to land half an hour later, you can't. First you may have to dump or burn 50 tons of fuel (rough number). Go look up differences between take off and landing weights for a few large commercial aircraft.

Re:Landing

[religionofpeas]

You could vent the LOX without too much trouble, I suppose.

Re:Landing

[drinkypoo]

If you take off in a 747 and then you want to land half an hour later, you can't.

It certainly complicates an early abort. I'm more concerned about a problem with the plane than with the rocket.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Re:only very small payloads to orbit

[Tenebrousedge]

Yeah, I don't understand the purpose of this project. Yes, you can launch Pegasus rockets from anywhere you choose, as long as you can find a runway long enough for this monster, and hopefully your launch facility has enough LOX and RP-1 for you to use. Probably best if your launch point is over water or unpopulated areas since most people don't appreciate having rocket stages dropped on their heads. But these sort of restrictions are no match for a man with vision!

I imagine Elon sent them a nice card congratulating them on having a reusable first stage. The Stratolaunch team has been trying to reassure people that this is not a billionaire's vanity project. We'll see what the score is when they figure out what their cost-per-kg to LEO is, but really I think that this situation could have been avoided by buying Paul a copy of KSP and having him play that until he figures out why this is a bad idea.

Re:only very small payloads to orbit

[hackertourist]

Stratolaunch have been trying to get a suitable rocket built by various companies, much larger than the Pegasus. Both SpaceX (with a Falcon-based rocket with 5 Merlin engines) and ATK were involved at some point. Several of those deals fell apart while construction on the aircraft was well underway.

The Pegasus deal is a last resort, it helps Orbital get rid of their last-of-the-Mohicans (i.e. expensive to operate) Tristar.

someone explain?

[supernova87a]

I am confused why this launch vehicle needs to exist (and this is the first I'd heard of it so maybe I'm uninformed).

It’s supposed to air-launch multiple Pegasus rockets at once (Pegasus = small 1000lb payload).But those rockets already are reliably launched by an old L-1011 by Orbital Sciences. see wiki page

The cost of that plane is not huge, and I wonder why launching 3 at once would be so useful that they'd design and fly satellites with a totally unproven aircraft?

Re:only very small payloads to orbit

[Tenebrousedge]

Well great but what they need more than rockets is a path to profitability. They need to be cost-effective for some market sector. That's clearly not going to be heavy lifting, so they are, what, hoping that microsattelites become as popular as smartphones? And that they aren't banging on lower cost to orbit as a selling point worries me. This feels like a solution in search of a problem; feel free to correct me on that score.

Re:IANAAE

[ColdWetDog]

Melting the payload might be considered a downside. Next time, leave engineering to the engineers.

Re:IANAAE

[Agripa]

That is where the payload goes.

Used engines?

[Macdude]

I'm puzzled as to why they would use six USED 747 engines. Newer turbine engines are more efficient, why wouldn't you use six (or four) new 747 or A380 engines? It's not like he doesn't have the money...

Seems an odd thing

[russotto]

What is it about extremely rich people and extremely large airplanes made of organic material?