|
Stratolaunch with Massive Airplane in Development Closing Down Operations
We had a discussion here in April about the plane flying a test flight:
https://www.pprune.org/rumours-news/...nch-flies.html Unfortunately: Stratolaunch Systems Corporation, the space company founded by late billionaire and Microsoft Corp co-founder Paul Allen, is closing operations, cutting short ambitious plans to challenge traditional aerospace companies in a new “space race,” four people familiar with the matter said on Friday... As of April 1, Stratolaunch had only 21 employees, compared with 77 last December, one of the four sources said. Most of the remaining employees were focused on completing the carrier plane’s test flight. |
Salute!
I kinda figured this was the deal. Kinda like the Spruce Goose. Prove the thing can fly then put it in a museum. No way was this platform becoming capable of putting half of the weight or volume into orbit that the Space X rockets are doing. And now that Space X routinely lands the first stage, then costs go way down. All that being said, it is still neat to see a private endeavor reach for the stars without zillions of government $$$$. I realize Space X and Blue Origin get $$ from the government. However, seems like most of their upfront costs were financed by their umbrella companies -PayPal and Amazon. Heh? Gums sends.... |
Allen and Stratolaunch RIP
I love aviation.
One of the reasons is our industry come up with some wild and good ideas. This one was not. Anyone who has flown in some light or moderate turbulence can figure that out! A bit sad but rely, it would have broken up at one point. Regards Cpt B |
Good chance for Rocket Labs in New Zealand to pick up on the opportunities....? |
Salute!
Yeah "easy" the Kiwis might just have something for the smaller payloads. I agree with you Blue, that big plane would prolly be extremely limited due to WX. And then there's always the CAT up there when you least expect it. And while we're at it....... just Google Branson's "spaceport" in New Mexico. I have driven thru there, and it is "desolate", but looks like there's a new upscale hotel and a Holiday Inn Express for "smart" people. Bezo will have same problem where his place is at. In all fairness, the White Sands/Alamagordo area east of there is even worse!!! I always prayed I would never have orders to Holloman AFB. Gums sends... |
Originally Posted by gums
(Post 10484212)
Salute!
Yeah "easy" the Kiwis might just have something for the smaller payloads. I agree with you Blue, that big plane would prolly be extremely limited due to WX. And then there's always the CAT up there when you least expect it. And while we're at it....... just Google Branson's "spaceport" in New Mexico. I have driven thru there, and it is "desolate", but looks like there's a new upscale hotel and a Holiday Inn Express for "smart" people. Bezo will have same problem where his place is at. In all fairness, the White Sands/Alamagordo area east of there is even worse!!! I always prayed I would never have orders to Holloman AFB. Gums sends... |
According to Stratolaunch, they are not shutting down....
https://www.cnet.com/news/stratolaun...-closing-down/ |
Salute!
Tyler's site ( The War Zone - The Drive ) has been fairly reliable about many things and they had a source that agrees with my personal scenario of the "Spruce Goose" flight, thence to a museum. Another source told Reuters that Judy Allen, chair of Vulcan, a trustee of the Paul G. Allen Trust, and Paul Allen's sister, had let the flight occur to honor her late brother's wishes, but had already decided to close down Stratolaunch afterward by that point. Gums sends.... |
Originally Posted by BluSdUp
(Post 10484087)
I love aviation.
One of the reasons is our industry come up with some wild and good ideas. This one was not. Anyone who has flown in some light or moderate turbulence can figure that out! A bit sad but rely, it would have broken up at one point. Regards Cpt B Have to agree, could never understand why the two large booms were not connected with a large horizontal stabilizer, like a P38 That would have made for an enormously strong airframe, the design chosen seems to put a massive amount of stress on the wing, too much I would have thought |
Originally Posted by stilton
(Post 10486865)
Have to agree, could never understand why the two large booms were not connected with a large horizontal stabilizer, like a P38 That would have made for an enormously strong airframe, the design chosen seems to put a massive amount of stress on the wing, too much I would have thought Unless the plan was to drop the launcher before starting the rocket engines, but that would have negated much of the reuse-ability of the concept. |
amazing all the "arm chair" engineers here forecasting the structural failure of the aircraft...did you ring up the engineers who designed it and share your expertise??
|
Originally Posted by ironbutt57
(Post 10487354)
amazing all the "arm chair" engineers here forecasting the structural failure of the aircraft...did you ring up the engineers who designed it and share your expertise??
|
Future
Hope that the program continues ahead. The plane is impressive up close.
For an operator, the fact that there is not much in current orders is not a reflection of the potential for the system. Total fuel saving to get to the launch conditions for a vertical launch is around 30-60% of the total fuel to LEO, so a 250T total launch weight is equivalent to about a 10T payload and a 500T launch vehicle, about 2/3rds the size of an Ariane 5. The fuel is not a high cost, but the structure to carry it is expended in most cases and is a cost. The effect is to remove at least 1/2 of the costs of the first stage. DeltaV saving for the design is modest but that is a log law function so gains are considerable. The greatest improvement would be in the potential for reusable stages of the vehicle, and the increase in safety, lifting 750T from zero at sea level is a much bigger deal than launching 250T at 40,000'. https://cimg7.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune....9b38a57d94.png The size of the final staged payload is not constrained that much, the geometry permits a Delta or Ariane style large diameter payload to sit in front of the centre section. Cost is the main driver, but there is a safety case to be made as well. Would be a shame to see it not work for its living. It's not too far removed from Branson's program, and the SSC, would look good in Virgin or NASA colours. |
Originally Posted by etudiant
(Post 10486999)
Presumably the decision to leave the fuselages unconnected at the tail was driven by the need to accommodate the large launch vehicle fitted between them.
Unless the plan was to drop the launcher before starting the rocket engines, but that would have negated much of the reuse-ability of the concept. I wonder what the procedure would have been for landing with a rocket and expensive satellite payload that failed to fire. That would be one hairy landing. |
Twin booms vs twin tails....
Even at subsonic speeds, certain surfaces can experience localized supersonic boundary layer airflow. Due to these localized boundary layer differences on the surfaces, there is exceptional airframe flutter. (which gets worse as the aircraft approaches supersonic speeds) It is better to disconnect them and have twin tails that can flutter independently and be controlled separately. |
|
Salute!
Some air museum should be getting ready, but the damned thing is so big it will have to sit in the sun, snow, hail, rain wind while slowly degrading. Gums sends... |
Who is going to pay $400 mil??? |
Now if a computer controlled the tails as independent units, they could both be caused to follow a central line . . . one imagines.
|
Presumably companies would buy it mostly for the intellectual property--patents, etc.
|
| All times are GMT. The time now is 15:04. |
Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.