Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by martyb on Sunday April 14 2019, @10:12AM   Printer-friendly

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


Original Submission

Related Stories

Stratolaunch: The World's Largest Plane Rolls Out 22 comments

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)


Original Submission

Paul Allen's Stratolaunch Completes Key Taxi Test Days After His Death 12 comments

"Paul Allen's Stratolaunch, the world's biggest airplane, completed a crucial taxi test just days after the billionaire philanthropist's death." foxnews.com/tech/paul-allens-stratolaunch-worlds-largest-airplane-completes-key-taxi-test-days-after-his-death

The Microsoft co-founder's humongous plane is scheduled to leap into flight soon — after a few more tests like the most recent one, where it reached 80 miles per hour on a runway in the Mojave Desert.

Sadly, Allen, who died of lymphoma on Oct. 15, will not get to see his massive creation take flight.

Stratolaunch, with a wingspan longer than a football field, two cockpits, six engines and 28 wheels, will eventually be used to transport rockets carrying satellites and rocket ships. [...] The astonishingly supersized plane has 80 miles of wiring, a 385-foot wingspan and a takeoff weight of 1.3 million pounds, according to Wired.

"You don't build [that plane] unless you're very serious, not only about wanting to see the plane fly but to see it fulfill its purpose. Which is getting vehicles in orbit," Allen told Wired magazine earlier this year.


Original Submission

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
(1)
  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday April 14 2019, @10:31AM (6 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday April 14 2019, @10:31AM (#829310)

    SpaceX reusable systems makes this thing dead on arrival.

    • (Score: 3, Interesting) by aiwarrior on Sunday April 14 2019, @11:58AM (1 child)

      by aiwarrior (1812) on Sunday April 14 2019, @11:58AM (#829333) Journal

      I would not dismiss it. If it really is able to avoid most of the dense atmosphere for a launch this could be good. Plus the idea of having different design constraints for vacuum or low density atmosphere from a full sea level launch sounds very interesting. I think it is not dead on arrival, it is just very late to the party.

      • (Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 15 2019, @10:05AM

        by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 15 2019, @10:05AM (#829752)

        Well, the speed of a rocket is lowest on its departure, and gradually rises during its flight time. Frictional losses are polynomialy dependent on speed. I am not sure how significant in overall problem space is the problem of dense atmosphere on launch. Using aerodynamic lift for a part of the journey may be a good idea for saving amount of fuel to be launched, but it is probably less efficient (greater drag, for longer time) and doesn't scale favorably with increase in launch mass - for each new bigger rocket, you need to design another, bigger air frame to carry it, and aircraft design seems slower and more work intensive than rocket design, despite the "rocket science" meme.

    • (Score: 4, Insightful) by FatPhil on Sunday April 14 2019, @12:05PM (3 children)

      by FatPhil (863) <{pc-soylent} {at} {asdf.fi}> on Sunday April 14 2019, @12:05PM (#829334) Homepage
      Not really. Using all the O2 down here for backward-pointing friction rather than combining it with fuel for forward thrust is doubly wasteful. Even the simplest air launch gives an immediate 15% dV improvent, with associated cost/payload improvements.

      As I've said before, landing your boosters is 70s tech, so you shouldn't waste too much time stroking Musk's thrusters, he's not that cutting edge, he's just very successfully broken into a market that had forgotten how to compete and become fat and lazy on the US taxpayer's dollar, thanks to the MIC.
      --
      Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
      • (Score: 3, Funny) by takyon on Sunday April 14 2019, @01:11PM (1 child)

        by takyon (881) <takyonNO@SPAMsoylentnews.org> on Sunday April 14 2019, @01:11PM (#829354) Journal

        As I've said before, landing your boosters is 70s tech

        Apparently not financially sound 70s tech.

        And Starship's complete reusability will catch everyone with their pants down. ULA will be trying to capture Vulcan booster engines with helicopters.

        --
        [SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
        • (Score: 2) by FatPhil on Monday April 15 2019, @08:30AM

          by FatPhil (863) <{pc-soylent} {at} {asdf.fi}> on Monday April 15 2019, @08:30AM (#829737) Homepage
          Well, yeah, the finances were the problem. R&D is *expensive* on these kinds of things. At least Ronnie Raygun's Star Wars Initiative managed to throw some money in the direction of MD, and when that dried up whole load of resources went from MD to LM, and several solid demonstrations were made. But it didn't appear to solve an immediate and recognised problem, so funding ran dry.
          --
          Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
      • (Score: 3, Interesting) by novak on Monday April 15 2019, @04:46AM

        by novak (4683) on Monday April 15 2019, @04:46AM (#829652) Homepage

        Not really. Using all the O2 down here for backward-pointing friction rather than combining it with fuel for forward thrust is doubly wasteful. Even the simplest air launch gives an immediate 15% dV improvent, with associated cost/payload improvements.

        I'd rate that mostly false. While perhaps precisely true in the pure, mathematical sense that using air for thrust can improve Isp, there are a number of second order effects that ensure that it's not that simple, and most of these effects tend to drive up the cost as well.

        First, it doesn't give any "dV" improvement, because a vehicle designed for ground launch would never be able to air launch. The highest loads, by far, on an air launched vehicle are the "twang," when it drops, plus side loading and turning (~90 degrees for current systems) under full thrust. So actually, it's a boost in Isp for a weight penalty.

        Second, one of the most difficult parts of a rocket is stage separation, where the second (or later, depending on vehicle) stage separates from the previous one. This is something that's been worked on quite a long time and rarely ever fails anymore, but it does often induce high shock loading, plus it's made much easier by the fact that it's done out of atmosphere. Adding an airlaunch is essentially adding in the worst possible stage separation event, generally meaning more weight and more complexity.

        Third, launch facilities are both complex and often used as a way to offload weight from the rocket- the more you can put on the ground, the better, and then make it as heavy as you want. Adding, eg, cryogenics storage and fueling capability to an air vehicle is an enormous amount of complexity. Look at what Virgin orbit is doing about that- ignoring it and dealing with boiloff (more weight penalty) because it's too tough to handle.

        Fourth, you have to remember what you're comparing this air launched vehicle to. Probably, you're comparing it to something much simpler that experiences much lower loads and is marginally larger to compensate for any reduced Isp. I can tell you right now which is cheaper and easier to build and operate.

        So I'd say sure, in principal, air launch is cool and could give performance benefits, but I have not seen any indication in current or advertised systems that it actually reduces launch costs. If you wanted to do that, you'd come up with clever ways to make the separation from the carrier vehicle better/easier/lower load. Stratolaunch actually does the opposite because the aircraft is huge and they don't want a rocket operating within a huge radius from it for safety reasons. It's basically a vanity project that they had to justify.

        As a bonus problem with stratolaunch specifically, look how big it is. Insanely big. It could probably lift a vehicle capable of carrying ~6mt to LEO- impressive, but not even close to the size of an F9, for instance. Price per unit mass generally scales with vehicle size because some systems, like engines and avionics are expended on the second stage, and carrying more mass is the easiest way to spread out that cost. So if it's all about $/kg, strato isn't even going to be in the same league with today's RLVs, which are using 70s tech.

        --
        novak
  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday April 14 2019, @12:38PM (3 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday April 14 2019, @12:38PM (#829340)

    maybe they can mate it ontop of a mega yuge airship. like a gigantic one.
    imagine all the fridges and tvs and rice cookers it could deposit in the middle of no where.
    heck, it would be sooo huge it could be a flying megamall! ^_^

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday April 14 2019, @03:37PM (1 child)

      by Anonymous Coward on Sunday April 14 2019, @03:37PM (#829394)

      And airships don't respond well to bad weather.

      You can find sites on them online, but I think the minimum usable bladder size was the equivalent of a 40 foot diameter ball, and it improved from there. The calculations for tonnage buoyancy made it so you would be using 50 percent or more of your theoretical lift weight for superstructure and bladder skins however, and in the case of rocket launches you would have serious concerns about ensuring hydrogen evacuation of the free space around the bladders and in the case of any sort of launch failure there is a good chance of shrapnel coming down through the launch pad and compromising one or more bladders which could lead to catastrophic failure of your airship launch platform. And that ignores issues with shaping the airship to stay balanced 'upright' during all stages of prep and launch, which would require something less like the hindenburg/goodyear blimp and more like an open topped bounce house floating in the air, with ballast holding the center of gravity for the airship far below the launch platform itself.

      It all adds up to a very expensive proposition before you factor in the costs of raising/lowering said platform and loading the rocket and fuel onboard it for each launch. That is not to say it wouldn't have its own benefits, and maybe even cost savings if mass manufactured and run with optimal turnaround. The cost of hydrogen as a lift gas and the possibilities to synthesize it, vent it to atmosphere, or compress it to come back down to earth all give it a lower maintenance burden compared to an aircraft made out of two 747s for instance, and thanks to the physics involved could in fact allow it to scale much bigger for launches that better compared to multi-ton SpaceX launches than 800 pound satellite launches.

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 15 2019, @01:11AM

        by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 15 2019, @01:11AM (#829564)

        And that ignores issues with shaping the airship to stay balanced 'upright' during all stages of prep and launch

        Where the strong requirement of "staying balanced up-right" comes from?

    • (Score: 3, Interesting) by takyon on Sunday April 14 2019, @03:56PM

      by takyon (881) <takyonNO@SPAMsoylentnews.org> on Sunday April 14 2019, @03:56PM (#829399) Journal

      Not built for that. Look at these instead:

      Walmart Files Patent for a Blimp Warehouse [soylentnews.org]

      Alphabet Launches Drone Delivery Service Near Canberra, Australia [soylentnews.org]

      A related concept is that you could have a van that launches drones to get to the last mile deliveries:

      https://mttr.net/vans_and_drones [mttr.net]
      https://techcrunch.com/2017/09/28/mercedes-benz-kicks-off-drone-delivery-pilot-in-zurich/ [techcrunch.com]

      --
      [SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(1)