Stratolaunch, the giant aircraft designed to lift rockets into the stratosphere for drop-and-launch has been rolled out for the first time.
The initial construction on the massive plane Paul Allen has been quietly building in the California desert is complete, and the vehicle, which would be the world's largest plane with a wingspan wider than Howard Hughes' Spruce Goose, was wheeled out of its hangar for the first time on Wednesday.
[...] But why is Allen, the co-founder of Microsoft and owner of the Seattle Seahawks, building such a massive plane? It's not to carry passengers, but rather rockets. The bigger the plane, the larger the rockets, or the greater the number.
Allen's Stratolaunch company has partnered with Orbital ATK to "air launch" the company's Pegasus XL, a rocket capable of delivering small satellites, weighing as much as 1000 pounds, to orbit. The rockets would be tethered to the belly of the giant plane, which would fly them aloft, and once at an altitude of 35,000 feet or so, the rockets would drop and "air launch" to space.
"With airport-style operations and quick turn-around capabilities," the company said it believes "air launch" is a cheaper and more efficient way to get satellites into space than rockets that launch vertically and can be extraordinarily expensive.
See also:
The Register
Ars Technica (pictures)
Related Stories
Paul Allen has died at age 65:
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2018/oct/15/paul-allen-co-founder-microsoft-dies
Paul Allen, who co-founded Microsoft with his childhood friend Bill Gates, has died. He was 65.
Allen's company Vulcan said in a statement that he died Monday. Earlier this month Allen said the cancer he was treated for in 2009, non-Hodgkin lymphoma, had returned.
Allen, who was an avid sports fan, owned the Portland Trail Blazers and the Seattle Seahawks.
Of course the article has more information. There was more to Paul Allen that just mentioned above. Bound to hit multiple sources with different takes so be on the lookout for something from a source you like.
takyon: Allen Institute bio and Vulcan Inc. statement.
Related: Billionaire Boater Destroys almost 14,000 square feet of Reef in Cayman Islands
Scientists Force Genetically Engineered Mouse to Watch Classic Film Noir
Stratolaunch: The World's Largest Plane Rolls Out
Paul Allen Finds Lost World War II Cruiser USS Indianapolis
Allen Brain Atlas Releases Data on Live Human Brain Cells
World's Largest Plane is Designed to Lift Rockets Into the Stratosphere
The world's largest aircraft has made its first test flight:
The giant aircraft built by Stratolaunch to serve as an air-launch platform made its first flight April 13 amid questions about the future of the venture. The aircraft, the largest in the world by wingspan, took off from Mojave Air and Space Port in California at 9:58 a.m. Eastern. The plane flew for two and a half hours before landing back in Mojave, reaching a top speed of 278 kilometers per hour and altitude of 4,570 meters.
[...] [Neither Zachary Krevor, vice president of engineering at Stratolaunch,] nor Jean Floyd, the chief executive of Stratolaunch, said anything about the test flight program, including when the plane will fly again and how long the overall test program will last. The company took no questions from reporters during the call, which lasted 10 minutes.
The flight comes after a turbulent six months for the company. Its founder and principal funder, billionaire Paul Allen, passed away last October. In January, Stratolaunch announced it was abandoning development of its own launch vehicles that would have been air-launched from the plane. A company spokesman said at the time that Stratolaunch was "streamlining operations" to focus on aircraft development.
The only vehicle Stratolaunch currently plans to launch from the aircraft is Northrop Grumman's Pegasus XL, a small launch vehicle that has struggled in the commercial marketplace in recent years despite the surge in interest in small satellites. The only recent customer for the Pegasus is NASA, and problems with the rocket have delayed for months its latest mission for the agency, the ICON space science satellite.
Also at CNN.
Previously: Stratolaunch: The World's Largest Plane Rolls Out
Paul Allen's Stratolaunch Completes Key Taxi Test Days After His Death
A plane being developed by Paul Allen could lower the cost of launching to low-Earth orbit:
Rockets have been the way to get satellites into orbit since the dawn of the space age. But Microsoft co-founder Paul Allen hopes to shake that up with help from the world's biggest airplane.
"Stratolaunch" is a 500,000-pound beast with twin fuselages and a wingspan of 385 feet. Allen's Seattle-based company is developing it as a platform for lifting rockets into the stratosphere before launching them into space. It's seen as a cheaper, more reliable route to low-Earth orbit (LEO) — the sweet spot for many kinds of satellites.
The plane is still in development and has yet to fly, but last December it taxied out onto the runway at the Mojave Air & Space Port in Mojave, California. In another test last Sunday, it hit a new top taxi speed of 46 miles per hour [40 knots]. If all goes according to plan, the plane will take its first test flight next year. As to when Stratolaunch might begin commercial operations, no date has been given.
Twitter video of rollout.
Also at Flying Magazine.
Previously: Stratolaunch: The World's Largest Plane Rolls Out
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 01 2017, @11:29PM (5 children)
It would be really cool if this plane could go one better than SpaceX and catch the boosters on their way back down.
(Score: 2, Interesting) by Ethanol-fueled on Thursday June 01 2017, @11:52PM (2 children)
I doubt it. From the looks of it, Paul Allen has gone all-out Howard Hughes.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 02 2017, @09:36PM (1 child)
From the "big plane" aspect, or the "drinking your own urine" aspect? This is one Eth ought to know.
(Score: 1) by Ethanol-fueled on Friday June 02 2017, @10:49PM
Yeah, forgot to clarify - the batshit insane aspect.
Though he may have made a smart move buying the Portland Trailblazers, since basketball isn't being pussified and rulebooked to death like the NFL is.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 02 2017, @07:17AM (1 child)
This plane is supposed to *replace* the boosters. Bring the rocket up into the thin part of the atmosphere, where it won't need a lot of boosters to push through all the air.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 02 2017, @07:22PM
You still need a booster to get up to orbital speed and that booster is still expensive.
It would be worth catching if Paul Allen thinks he's up to that.
(Score: 2) by bob_super on Thursday June 01 2017, @11:48PM (10 children)
I guess it must be cheap, but not super future-proof (or quiet), to be using 6 747-class engines.
Which not use more current big/efficient/powerful engines like the giants from the B777/B787/A380/A350 ?
(Score: 2) by bob_super on Thursday June 01 2017, @11:51PM
s/which/why (obviously)
(Score: 3, Informative) by deadstick on Friday June 02 2017, @12:17AM
Money. This airplane is not going to rack up the huge number of operating hours an airliner does; it will be worn out or obsolete before modern engines would even begin to depreciate. Likewise, its noise signature - while high - will be infrequent, localized and brief.
(Score: 2) by MostCynical on Friday June 02 2017, @12:25AM
Cost
"The CF6 engine has a list price of about $11 million (from an A330 order in 2009, higher thrust version; $12.2 million in 2015 USD1)" https://aviation.stackexchange.com/questions/16007/what-is-the-cost-of-the-engine-boeing-747-model-400?rq=1 [stackexchange.com]
GE9X: US$ 41.4M list price (2016) http://www.gereports.com/the-art-of-engineering-the-worlds-largest-jet-engine-shows-off-composite-curves/ [gereports.com]
Even the base model GE9 is over $20 million USD
"I guess once you start doubting, there's no end to it." -Batou, Ghost in the Shell: Stand Alone Complex
(Score: 2, Insightful) by khallow on Friday June 02 2017, @12:26AM
(Score: 4, Insightful) by frojack on Friday June 02 2017, @01:32AM (5 children)
I can't imagine how great the stresses on that center span will be with any significant load. Its not clear where they intend to mount the load, to the fuselage or that center spar. In either case dropping that load suddenly seems like it would be a huge whip inducing event.
A few years ago there were a couple of forest fire-fighting planes that came apart after years of stress fractures. In each case the break happened just AFTER the fire retardant payload was emptied and the wing load was dramatically reduced. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yYKIGT7EgSA [youtube.com]
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 3, Informative) by mhajicek on Friday June 02 2017, @06:19AM (2 children)
The center spar is also going to undergo huge tortional loads every time the plane hits turbulence. Should have connected the tails.
The spacelike surfaces of time foliations can have a cusp at the surface of discontinuity. - P. Hajicek
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 02 2017, @08:37AM (1 child)
They are probably not sure if they may need to carry rockets longer then their fuselage, otherwise it would had been a sane thing to do.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 02 2017, @09:30AM
Put a cross piece up high, like a greek letter pi.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 02 2017, @07:23AM
"A few years ago"?
The video is 4:3, 240p, looks like it's been taken with a VHS camcorder. To quote Indiana Jones: "This belongs in a museum".
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 02 2017, @08:35AM
Well, to prevent that, this two-headed bird will probably have to become the world's largest dive bomber ever, separating from its load only on a zero G trajectory.
(Score: 2, Funny) by realDonaldTrump on Friday June 02 2017, @12:43AM
I promised the American people I would free NASA from the restriction of serving primarily as a logistics agency for low Earth orbit activity. Big deal! I promised we would refocus its mission on space exploration. Under a Trump administration, Florida and America will lead the way to the stars. Just think about what we're accomplishing in my first 100 days. This rollout is just the beginning. A big thank you to Paul and the other great people at NASA for making this happen in my first 100 days. Tremendous! #MAGA
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 02 2017, @12:46AM
I'll give it "widest". [wikimedia.org]
In all other dimensions, Mriya still has it beat or matched. [google.com]
-- OriginalOwner_ [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 3, Informative) by MrGuy on Friday June 02 2017, @03:56PM (1 child)
I think I'll let Randall Munroe of XKCD explain why for me, since he does a better job than I would.
https://what-if.xkcd.com/58/ [xkcd.com]
Key quote: "The reason it's hard to get to orbit isn't that space is high up.
It's hard to get to orbit because you have to go so fast....(snip)...But getting to space is easy. The problem is staying there."
To paraphrase, thinking "what if we started from higher up in the atmosphere/closer to space?" seems intuitively like it would make getting objects into orbit much easier, because you start from "closer up" and have to fight less of the atmosphere. But the savings turn out to be not that big in practice, because getting to space isn't about going up really far, but about going sideways really fast. The complications introduced by having to launch a rocket out of an airplane seem large, and the benefit doesn't seem nearly as massive you might intuitively think.
(Score: 2) by Bobs on Friday June 02 2017, @05:57PM
Thanks for the link - hadn't seen that.
(Score: 2) by Bobs on Friday June 02 2017, @05:02PM
I am not a rocket scientist, but have been exploring something like this as a low-key hobby.
It would be awesome if it works! A great idea and possibly a way to significantly reduce fuel requirements for orbit.
In addition to the issues others raised above, a couple of the challenges to making it work well:
a) Rocket exhaust: How do you keep from toasting the launch vehicle? Dropping it slows it down and loses altitude.
b) Launch velocity: going from a standing start at 30k feet and not launching vertically changes some of the flight dynamics, so you don't save as much as you might think. (Normally by the time a rocket reaches that altitude it is moving fairly fast.)
c) You still have a long way to go and need a lot more acceleration from only 30k feet.
Personally, I would use a different vehicle design and go higher before launching.
But it will be thrilling if it works.