A giant descendant of the White Knight/SpaceShip 2 system seems to be under development. Paul Allen and Burt Rutan are behind “Stratolaunch Systems,” which would develop the worlds largest aircraft to carry a derivative of the SpaceX Falcon 9 launcher.
Carrier Aircraft
The carrier aircraft, built by Scaled Composites, weighs more than 1.2 million pounds and has a wingspan of 385 feet – greater than the length of a football field. Using six 747 engines, the carrier aircraft will be the largest aircraft ever constructed. The air-launch system requires a takeoff and landing runway that is, at minimum, 12,000 feet long. The carrier aircraft can fly over 1,300 nautical miles to reach an optimal launch point.
Multi-Stage Booster
SpaceX’s multi-stage booster is derived from the company’s Falcon 9 rocket. At approximately 120 feet long, the booster is designed to loft the payload into low earth orbit. After release of the booster from the aircraft at approximately 30,000 feet, the first stage engines ignite and the spacecraft begins its journey into space. After the first stage burn and a short coast period, the second stage ignites and the orbital payload proceeds to its planned mission.
The carrier aircraft is a twin-body design to be built – or at least designed – by Scaled Composites. The design is very much a Scaled Composites design, though rather slab-sided compared to usual Scaled designs. Payload would be on the order of a half-million pounds, and propulsion would be provided by six “747 engines.” The Falcon 9 rocket would be given a Pegasus-like delta wing, located very far aft. Payload delivered to LEO is 13,500 pounds, and could include the manned Dragon space capsule.
[youtube 8XvkXweoJKs]
Some images:
It’s unclear as yet what the actual status of the program is… whether it’s in the conceptual design stage, advanced design or maybe even construction (unlikely, that).
29 Responses to “Stratolaunch”
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
I see Burt’s name thrown around a lot in the stories about this… Hasn’t he retired from Scaled Composites? Maybe that explains un-Rutan-ness aspects of the design?
I’m curious about something, and I’m hoping there’s people here with real aerospace experience that answer. Development costs aside, would this be that much cheaper than a reusable first stage booster, like the grasshopper SpaceX showed off a few months ago? With this design you have to maintain a costly custom facility/runway, expensive maintenance, pilot and crew, etc. Is flying a plane 1,300 miles to the launch point cheaper than a rocket booster flying straight up to the same launch altitude?
It’s one thing to strap a Pegasus under a ‘off the shelf’ plan But another to go about building the world’s biggest plane to launch…. I wonder if this means they’ll stop work on their reusable rocket work.
I figure that the aircraft is a reusable first stage with a 30 to one lift to drag ratio. That would get the second stage to its start altitude with a lot less fuel expended (and using natural air as oxidizer). A very cheap first stage to use.
I met Burt on business a few years ago, He didn’t seem to be slowing down to me.
Yeah Burt sold off his remaining ownership in Scaled adn retired. Hes not really involvedin the engineering work on this.
I guess losing people in the SS2 engine test, and a heart attack, told him it was time to backoff.
I agree that it’s doubtful that Burt Rutan is actively involved in this project.
As for the general concept, I remember seeing a talk he gave (before the X-Prize) where he discussed the dangers of various stages of launching into space. His view was that using an air-breathing aircraft was the safest way to reach the upper atmosphere, both theoretically and based on actual record. At that point the increased distance from the ground (and thus increased time delay before hitting it) made other propulsion methods “safe enough” for the boost into space.
Burt felt that the increased safety of his first stage concept overrode any possible performance losses (which he felt could be limited), especially for manned spaceflight.
The main advantage to this system is the freedom it gives mission planners. Need to put a satellite into a 28 degree orbit? A 50 degree orbit? A polar orbit? No problem. No need to build (or relocate to) a West Coast or mid-ocean launch site — just load up at any airport with the required ground facilities, fly to the desired launch latitude, aim the nose along the desired inclination, and blast away. This gives commercial carriers the flexibility to service any station in any orbit, LEO or GEO or polar, and it gives military planners the ability to spoof skywatchers. “The infidels launch their spy satellites from airplanes out over the ocean, my brother, We have no way of knowing when or to what orbit the accursed things will be sent!”
It’s worth noting that with a lift capacity of 13,000+ lbs to orbit the system could also put the Air Force X-37 OTV into space on an as-needed basis. It could of course also carry a helluva weapon load — with its ability to carry 490,000 lb worth of booster to launch altitude, the bird could easily loft four air-launchable LGM-30 Minuteman III missiles (@ 86,000 lb) at once, or even carry a fully-loaded B-2A Spirit stealth bomber (336,500 lb) plus a couple of F-22A escort fighters (64,460 lb each). Or imagine the Stratolauncher carrying a missile pod: it could launch 140 cruise missiles of the AGM-129 class (@ 3,500 lb) or over 300 SLAM/Harpoon missiles (@1,523 lb). You could wipe out an entire enemy battle group with a single launch!
(I’m ignoring interface/fire control issues, of course. I’m just trying to put into perspective the sheer lifting power of the aircraft. Still, the thought of a B-2 plus fighter escort dropping off that thing in flight is cool, as is the thought of 300 Harpoons being ripple-fired from a flying arsenal ship.)
It’s all pretty pictures so far, of course — but it’ll be interesting to see if they can pull it off. Audacity — that’s the American Way!
I need to read up on orbital mechanics. Didn’t think that it was such a big deal. Good to know.
Hmm. This thing also could carry all sorts of cargo, both commercial and military. One advantage of having a Stratolauncher carry a cargo pod could be the ability to detach the pod and leave it. Cargo pods would be dirt-cheap compared to the Stratolauncher itself, so drop off the pod and fly the expensive aircraft away immediately on a new mission and let someone else unload the pod on their own schedule. You might even want the cargo pod to deliver (or to be) a semi-permanent facility for the delivery point. And imagine what you could air-drop …
Hmm again … Would it make sense for the pods to contain passengers? Making the passenger compartment of a commercial aircraft a separate, independent module could have all sorts of advantages for ground operations and logistics.
I think there was a specific mention of cargo on the companies site, or a news article about it. I agree. Even better than ramp loading or RORO. Fill the pod on your time. The plane shows up, grabs it, and rolls back to the strip to take off after refueling. Only problem would be the facilities to support it. Both a big ass runway and the ramp area to taxi to to get the pod.
If you thought the A380 was trouble….. ; P
Yeah. A few years ago I moved from one city to another using the services of PODS. They drop an 8x8x16 storage container in your driveway, you fill it on your own time, then then they pick it up (using what is essentially a miniature, wheeled version of the Stratolauncher). They can store the container in their facility for a monthly fee and/or load it onto a flatbed semi and haul it wherever you want it. The Stratolauncher could be PODS writ large, with wings.
I wonder if this means they’ll stop work on their reusable rocket work.
Seems to me that use of a Stratolauncher may be the key to making tail-first landing practical. Pick the recovery site, and then air-launch from whatever location lets you land the booster at that site.
Immense plane! And if they succeed, an immense success, I guess. One thing, It is not a Falcon 9. It only has 5 engines, to the Falcon 9’s nine engines in the first stage. I presume this is the Falcon 5, which SpaceX designed but never planned because they straight went for the ‘niner.
The tailplane on the rocket looks a bit odd to me, and might be there only to accommodate some extra lift or stability for the plane. Should be jettisonable, in that case, I guess.
Anyway, there’s a lot happening outside of NASA these days. I like the creativity. It looks a lot like the original brilliance NASA had in the early space race era. Just discovering possibilities. No restrictions in inventing, combining and making up weird ideas that *might* work…
Looks unnecessarily complicated to me. Why not simply get a SSTO system? There have been working demonstrators of such systems so why go all Thunderbirdish?
> Why not simply get a SSTO system?
Because SSTO is not all that simple. Nor does it offer the advantages that this system presumably will (the ability to launch from where-the-hell-ever being one of the primary ones).
Fan of Thunderbirds were you?
I saw the “Thunderbirds” movie with Gandhi and Private Hudson a few months back. it sucked. That’s the sum total of my experience with “Thunderbirds.” It’s also irrelevant to this discussion.
Is it? Why then are you pushing a concept that is like something dreamed up by Gerry Anderson after a hard night on the booze and which has all the potential to fail because of its complexity? Ever heard of the KISS principle?
Air launch long precedes “Thunderbirds.” OSC has been doing it commercially since the ’90’s.
In any event, I’m hardly “pushing” the concept.
PodPlanes have been tried before by Fairchild I think. One advantage of a passenger version is no way could a passenger get to the pilots.
Fairchild indeed, I believe you are refering to the Packplane:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ecr7u-Z1Q3Y
So if you had a large passenger pod that drove itself from terminal to aircraft and docked you would simultaneously increase passenger throughput and allow the same plane to do cargo effectively. Also solves large aircraft terminal interface problem.
Good thing about this is that the payload is underslung. Antonov AN-225 still seems to have it outclassed with 550,000 pounds of payload, and it was to carry an entire Energiya core block atop it–or large external payloads wider than what Stratolaunch can handle.
I wonder what this means for Spaceship Two? If I want to go suborbital, I’ll go with Lynx. If I want to visit an SLS launched Bigelow type station, I’ll use stratolaunch.
But two-stage-to sub-orbit? I think Spaceship Two has already become obsolete. At least the carrier aircraft could release some smaller munitions or drones. Still, I think Rutans company is best at making lightweight planes that fly far while sipping little fuel. A Voyager based drone crashes in Iran, and their military doesn’t have much more than what John Denver was left with in the end.
When I first heard Strato-Launch on the Radio news, I had hoped that Allen had gone to Boeing or Antonov–somebody with real experince in making large airframes…
Strangly unimaginative? Rutan first worked on a design like this for orbital back in the 80’s. The Pegasus didn’t turn out to be very commercial. Orbital went to a more capable ground launch craft.
If your going to do all the trouble of doing all this design work – why not get more bang for your buck? Spend the time and
money needed to develop the carrier craft for something more RLVish. Even Rutan said for orbital launches airlaunch is much less help full then for suborbital.
Oh well – at least you eliminate the cost of a launch facility and need to clear out airspace and such.
Oh, as to SS2, they are really paying for designing it around that loopy hybride system they were sure was completely safe. That alone might really hurt them as far as operability. That much nitros, adn a full load of solid fuel would make me a little nervious around it in a hanger.
> That much nitros, adn a full load of solid fuel would make me a little nervious around it in a hanger.
The solid fuel is as inert as a chunk of rubber. However, nitrous, as they’ve discovered, can be problematic. Get it above 100 degrees F, and it simply can’t stay liquid anymore. You’re liquid N2O tank sitting happily at 800 psi can, if something goes wrong with thermal control and relief valves, shoot up to about 10,000 psi as the N2O boils.
But then, what are the possibilities of something getting to 100 F in the Mojave desert?
😉
Worse. It sometimes has catalitic reactions to metals — possibly some usedin the injector they used.
;/
The latest
http://www.parabolicarc.com/2017/04/19/stratolaunch-photos-show-worlds-largest-aircraft/
Small problem in using the carrier aircraft from airports: it won’t fit. Not only would there be a problem with the wingspan, it would be a job and a half getting this thing to safely fit on average runways. While I image most really big airports would have runways wide enough for the two fuselages to fit on, there won’t be a whole lot of room for error.
There are simpler solutions for the idea of cargo/people-pod carriers. Something akin to the Lockheed Flatbed, but perhaps inverted, would be a more practical solution.
Agreed. Rutan did that with his Proteus – not sure why he went this way — unless he was worrying about how high the cockpits would be, and the long landing gear?
That was going to be the problem with Gump’s T-Space or Q-Space or whatever–a 747 on stilts.Shoulder-mount on a high-winged craft like Antonov would have been better…
The C-17s didn’t have room for much of a rocket. I’m impressed with any possible military uses of this bird. Irans underground installations might be resistant to some modern bunker busters–but this looks to change the game. The word today is stand off strike capability, with as little valuable assets forward. We saw what happens with the fighter-jock school of drone use–you wind up giving the enemy more than you wanted–as was the case when improved ATOLL-sidewinders got shot back at us.