Will StratoLaunch Fly?

[tater]

Yeah, it's sketchy... I'd not want to be aboard unless it has an ejection seat.

 

[wumpus]

47 minutes ago, SpaceFace545 said:

I may seem like a debby downer but I think they just built a very large plane for no reason. It's not even branded as a space launch platform, now its called a hypersonic test platform. I guess they realized that there aren't any rockets built to fly on their plane and its way too expensive to develop their own rockets and spacecraft.

I think that became obvious about a decade ago when spacex dropped the falcon5.  To those who know little of space, it sounds like a great idea (especially if all they know is how much fuel a rocket burns to get to 10km).  Once you understand that your entire benefit is in orbital inclination and nozzle optimization (I suspect "vacuum" nozzles work fine at 10km) it gets a little iffy.  Then when you look at the issues of topping off cryogenic propellants* and hard limits to expand your rocket it gets worse.

Once you start working out the cost/benefits, you start to realize why the US space program started in Cape Canaveral at sea level and not Leadville, CO (two miles up) or Mauna Kea, Hi (better inclination, probably further from the Earth's core).  It isn't much of an advantage.

* the Pegasus family of rockets are all solid.

[SpaceFace545]

46 minutes ago, wumpus said:

I think that became obvious about a decade ago when spacex dropped the falcon5.  To those who know little of space, it sounds like a great idea (especially if all they know is how much fuel a rocket burns to get to 10km).  Once you understand that your entire benefit is in orbital inclination and nozzle optimization (I suspect "vacuum" nozzles work fine at 10km) it gets a little iffy.  Then when you look at the issues of topping off cryogenic propellants* and hard limits to expand your rocket it gets worse.

Once you start working out the cost/benefits, you start to realize why the US space program started in Cape Canaveral at sea level and not Leadville, CO (two miles up) or Mauna Kea, Hi (better inclination, probably further from the Earth's core).  It isn't much of an advantage.

* the Pegasus family of rockets are all solid.

Yeah, It's kinda sad though to see such a massive and interesting plane sit in a hangar for the most of it's life. Spaceplanes are the definite future of affordable space access systems so maybe in a couple decades when spaceplane technology progresses we can see what happens to stratolaunch.

[Hannu2]

If I remember correctly this project began before routinely reuse of rocket boosters. It is clear that rapid and cheap reuse has destroyed most markets of these plane rockets. It may be practical to use standard 747 for some small rocket launches with special need of inclination but I can not believe that building and maintaining this kind of very special planes will be productive business.

[kerbiloid]

It should catch and land the descending starships.

[tater]

1 hour ago, SpaceFace545 said:

Yeah, It's kinda sad though to see such a massive and interesting plane sit in a hangar for the most of it's life. Spaceplanes are the definite future of affordable space access systems so maybe in a couple decades when spaceplane technology progresses we can see what happens to stratolaunch.

Maybe. I'd certainly like to see someone try a 100% reusable, TSTO spaceplane (where S1 can be a huge plane). I think it might be the best way for humans, anyway, it will never be a cost effective cargo solution I think.

Edited April 29, 2021 by tater

[SpaceFace545]

31 minutes ago, tater said:

Maybe. I'd certainly like to see someone try a 100% reusable, TSTO spaceplane (where S1 can be a huge plane). I think it might be the best way for humans, anyway, it will never be a cost effective cargo solution I think.

I think stuff like Skylon will definitely replace traditional rockets for LEO cargo. Although it can't lift much mass into orbit it has the ability to rapidly and safely launch payloads. Its also badass.

[mikegarrison]

46 minutes ago, SpaceFace545 said:

I think stuff like Skylon will definitely replace traditional rockets for LEO cargo. Although it can't lift much mass into orbit it has the ability to rapidly and safely launch payloads. Its also badass.

Skylon? A spacecraft that only exists on Powerpoint slides?

[tater]

48 minutes ago, SpaceFace545 said:

I think stuff like Skylon will definitely replace traditional rockets for LEO cargo. Although it can't lift much mass into orbit it has the ability to rapidly and safely launch payloads. Its also badass.

SSTOs make little sense to me, though f they could get it to work, sure.

That said, the cargo mass fraction is small, it's only good for people, not cargo.

@mikegarrison what does a professional think about that thing ^^^

It seems to work, but it sorta freaks me out.

[SpaceFace545]

12 minutes ago, mikegarrison said:

Skylon? A spacecraft that only exists on Powerpoint slides?

A lot of things only exist on powerpoint slides. But if it ever gets up and going it will revolutionize space access.

Edited April 29, 2021 by SpaceFace545

[mikegarrison]

13 minutes ago, tater said:

@mikegarrison what does a professional think about that thing ^^^

It seems to work, but it sorta freaks me out.

I don't know what you are asking. Obviously it exhibits controlled flight.

5 minutes ago, SpaceFace545 said:

A lot of things only exist on powerpoint slides. But if it ever gets up and going it will revolutionize space access.

If my grandfather got up and started walking around again, it would show people can come back from death (and cremation too). But until then....

[JoeSchmuckatelli]

19 hours ago, SpaceFace545 said:

A lot of things only exist on powerpoint slides. But if it ever gets up and going it will revolutionize space access.

Edit - that was supposed to @tater 's post asking Mike a question...

19 hours ago, mikegarrison said:

I don't know what you are asking. Obviously it exhibits controlled flight.

....

I came here to ask Mike the same question.  Guess he's tetchy today.  

 

But Mike: from an engineering standpoint - why only a single thin wing between the two fuselages?  I thought most two fuselage planes had wing and tail connections 

Edited April 30, 2021 by JoeSchmuckatelli

[wumpus]

20 hours ago, mikegarrison said:

Skylon? A spacecraft that only exists on Powerpoint slides?

The x-43 based orbital launch platform exists only on  Powerpoint slides, or perhaps just as a "proposal for further funding", but the X-43b/c test drones did exist (and possibly still exist at the bottom of the Pacific).  It isn't clear if you would want to make such a beast two stage (like Spacex does) and recover both.  For the TSTO, I'd suspect you'd have to make your air breathing engine accept LOX oxidizer to get it out of the atmosphere to stage.  For SSTO, you'd be carrying an awfully complex engine/set of engines to handle the delta-v from subsonic to > 1000m/s.

The x-43 proved that it can maintain > mach 10, although that was even more a proof of concept than the mach 6 flight, but that might be enough to pave the way to SSTO (although I still think that Spacex's reusable TSTO is obsoleting most of the need for SSTO on Earth).

Unfortunately the x-43 program has moved from NASA to USAF, and is now classified.  No idea if we'll ever see it again.

[JoeSchmuckatelli]

19 minutes ago, wumpus said:

the X-43b/c test drones did exist (and possibly still exist at the bottom of the Pacific). 

The image of that 'flight to submersible' did not happen to have been caught by a Navy pilot and now be the source of intense hype by Fox'news' about UFOs now, would it? 

[SpaceFace545]

23 minutes ago, JoeSchmuckatelli said:

The image of that 'flight to submersible' did not happen to have been caught by a Navy pilot and now be the source of intense hype by Fox'news' about UFOs now, would it? 

Those ufos are actual ufos not just some test article.

[JoeSchmuckatelli]

48 minutes ago, SpaceFace545 said:

Those ufos are actual ufos not just some test article.

GRIN! - - Or are they? 

Having been in the service, sometimes one does not tell the other what they are doing - even when operating in the same space.  It may have been something that the Navy pilot couldn't identify - but others with little inclination to disclose their work knew what the Navy saw. 

 

This is true down to the 'stupid' level - ala when Rangers are training in infantry tactics alongside Marines. ("ooh don't want them to see how we do a FireTeam Wedge")... Super sekret stuff! 

So when one service member spots something in a restricted area that isn't recognized - I think 'geeks are testing something' - not 'Aliens'. 

Edited April 30, 2021 by JoeSchmuckatelli

[SpaceFace545]

2 minutes ago, JoeSchmuckatelli said:

GRIN! - - Or are they? 

Having been in the service, sometimes one does not tell the other what they are doing - even when operating in the same space.  It may have been something that the Navy pilot couldn't identify - but others with little inclination to disclose their work knew what the Navy saw. 

 

This is true down to the 'stupid' level - ala when Rangers are training in infantry tactics alongside Marines. ("ooh don't want them to see how we do a FireTeam Wedge")... Super sekret stuff! 

So when one service member spots something in a restricted area that isn't recognized - I think 'geeks are testing something' - not 'Aliens'. 

So you where in the Navy? and If you were could I ask you some questions?

[JoeSchmuckatelli]

49 minutes ago, SpaceFace545 said:

So you where in the Navy? and If you were could I ask you some questions?

Perhaps refer to my sig?

 

You can ask about my knowledge of those critters - but like most on this board there's some things I wont answer or speculate about; that said... it's been a long while since I was in.  If you want a more 'current' outlook / answer, I'm perhaps not the best source.

 

However - fire away.  I'll do my best.

 

(for whatever that is worth)

[SpaceFace545]

6 minutes ago, JoeSchmuckatelli said:

Perhaps refer to my sig?

 

You can ask about my knowledge of those critters - but like most on this board there's some things I wont answer or speculate about; that said... it's been a long while since I was in.  If you want a more 'current' outlook / answer, I'm perhaps not the best source.

 

However - fire away.  I'll do my best.

 

(for whatever that is worth)

I meant more career wise, I’ve been thinking about a career as a naval pilot. What’s are the actual chances of becoming one?

[JoeSchmuckatelli]

20 minutes ago, SpaceFace545 said:

I meant more career wise, I’ve been thinking about a career as a naval pilot. What’s are the actual chances of becoming one?

Okay - so 20 year old information... but the answer is, "It's doable, but competitive".

I have friends who were / are Naval and Marine Corps Aviators.  I'm not 100% certain how the Navy did their selection, but with the Marines, candidates came in on a "Flight Option" program.  Meaning they were offered the opportunity, but not guaranteed to be assigned to flight roles.  This was after a lengthy selection process that looks at physical ability, test scores and other things. The Marine Flight Option lieutenants still had to pass the Basic School with their opportunity intact - meaning there's lots of opportunity to screw things up.

 

The best person to talk to would be an OSO (Officer Selection Officer) for either (and I recommend, both) the Navy and Marines.  They can tell you all about the qualifications and selection process.  A caution: don't take a certain test (can't remember the name) for any more than one service.  Doing so within a certain timeframe is disqualifying (happened to a friend, and caused him significant delays).  Also: don't think that just because you pass the tests and selection process that you're gonna be a fighter pilot: there's lots of guys who go in thinking "Top Gun" and still succeed by being a C-130 Pilot.  The one's who don't succeed end up being something else, like logistics, operations, etc. that are still highly valued career paths.  May not be what you want to do... but needs of the service and all that.

 

So - look up "Navy Officer Selection Officer" or Marine OSO for the biggest most populated city in your region - one with major colleges... and that's likely to be yours as well.  They'd be happy to answer any and all questions.

 

(I was the guy on the ground telling the pilots what to shoot, btw.  Never wanted to fly anything ...well, except whirly birds - but I always saw myself as the guy jumping out of them - not the guy flying them.)

 

EDIT: I'll add this... If you are the kind of person that is wired just right, a career in the military is something you will never regret.  You get to do stuff no one else does.  Some people are not wired correctly and they hate it.  All that said: the stuff you do in training for combat is amazing, and fun, and some of the best experiences you can have in this world.  If/when you go to combat... that changes.  Point being, the game is awesome - but the reality is its own thing.

Edited April 30, 2021 by JoeSchmuckatelli

[wumpus]

50 minutes ago, JoeSchmuckatelli said:

Also: don't think that just because you pass the tests and selection process that you're gonna be a fighter pilot: there's lots of guys who go in thinking "Top Gun" and still succeed by being a C-130 Pilot. 

When I was a boy scout we'd do things like visit military bases in January because we were to wimpy to go camping.  One of the bases was Dover Air Force base (it was the during the cold war, so any bodies brought back were likely training accidents and low profile to keep the guys enlisting).  At the time, a C-5 pilot flying between Dover (an hour from the beach) to Dusseldorf, Germany had to have the cushiest job in the military.  And then leaves the service with all sorts of hours in wide body jets set for civilian life.

Which is probably why they were more than happy to put scouts up for the weekend in Dover AFB.

[FleshJeb]

More pics and links here:

https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/40391/the-biggest-airplane-in-the-world-has-taken-to-the-skies-a-second-time-after-two-year-hiatus

[mikegarrison]

7 hours ago, JoeSchmuckatelli said:

But Mike: from an engineering standpoint - why only a single thin wing between the two fuselages?  I thought most two fuselage planes had wing and tail connections 

Well that would form a truss, which is a much stiffer and stronger structure. So you could then make it lighter. But most such airplanes would not be designed to have a rocket exhaust plume possibly impinging on that .

The point is, there is no reason why you can't design the plane like they did, and the proof is that they did and it flies. I assume that center wing structure is incredibly strong and stiff (and also therefore quite heavy).

4 hours ago, JoeSchmuckatelli said:

Also: don't think that just because you pass the tests and selection process that you're gonna be a fighter pilot: there's lots of guys who go in thinking "Top Gun" and still succeed by being a C-130 Pilot.

One of our test pilots was a P-3 pilot before becoming a test pilot for us. The joke was that he was the only one of our ex-military pilots who thought our airliners were fast.

On the other side, one of our other test pilots had been a Shuttle pilot.

Edited April 30, 2021 by mikegarrison

[tater]

1 hour ago, mikegarrison said:

Well that would form a truss, which is a much stiffer and stronger structure. So you could then make it lighter. But most such airplanes would not be designed to have a rocket exhaust plume possibly impinging on that .

The point is, there is no reason why you can't design the plane like they did, and the proof is that they did and it flies. I assume that center wing structure is incredibly strong and stiff (and also therefore quite heavy).

Yeah, that is what I assumed, it's just not what I'm used to seeing—the last time there were such planes being messed with they were smaller (There were a bunch of oddball looking planes in ww2, and yeah, the tail was linked as well (F-82, etc).

So the 2 fuselage and center wing has to be quite rigid, and the outboard wings are then more typical of what gets done generally.

It's actually interesting to me how far apart the 2 fuselage segments are. I assume that the rocket or hypersonic vehicle will be dropped, then fire engines, so presumably plume interaction is not that likely, though.

[Meecrob]

The thing is separation events can be ridiculously complex with trying to model all the airflow, so if you are already making a clean-sheet design, and you know you are going to be carrying something that could literally melt the CFRP in the airframe, why wouldn't you just design it to minimize the chance of an accident or mishap taking out your ONLY aircraft, and thus your entire business along with it?

Slightly off topic, but this article gives a great example of how hard it is for really smart people to make something fall off a plane and MISS the carrier aircraft.
http://www.ejectionsite.com/F-14 SHOOTDOWN.pdf