|
|
|
#1
06-15-2013, 08:11 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Stratolauncher
Check out this monster........Rich
 and link to story Orbital Sciences Hired To Build Stratolaunch Rocket | World's Largest Air-Launched Space Rocket. | Space.com and second story http://www.space.com/13926-biggest-a...fographic.html
__________________
F-1 Rules 
|
| Google Adsense |
|
#2
06-15-2013, 08:26 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Very interesting. Governments go cold on space while private enterprise gets hot! This, Virgin and so forth!
I hope this project does in fact come to fruition!
__________________
The SD40 is 55 now!
|
|
#5
06-15-2013, 02:10 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
I wouldn't count on it...
They started off planning to launch basically a Falcon 5 slung horizontally under the largest aircraft ever built. Of course the problems of propellant sloshing, suspension and controlled release of the rocket vehicle, and of course engineering and building and flight operation of such a gigantic aircraft seems to have put the kibosh on the plan... Now they're proposing a gigantic shuttle-booster size solid rocket slung under a gigantic aircraft. While this eliminates the propellant sloshing problems and greatly increases the structural strength of the rocket vehicle, using a thicker solid-propellant casing in lieu of the much thinner liquid rocket tanks, the issues are still very formidable. A solid rocket motor this size is ENORMOUSLY heavy, and if the vehicle uses a liquid upper stage, there will still be a lot of issues with it. Also, the engineering challenges of such a gigantic aircraft still remain, maybe even more extreme due to the huge weight of the SRM rocket vehicle it's supposed to carry. Personally, I think this is just more hype and "pretty rocket porn" put out by publicity seekers who constantly throw stuff out as "look at the next thing we're building" and just seeing what sticks. I don't believe a bit of it until I actually see it fly-- til then, it's all talk, and talk is cheap. Besides, the "benefits" of horizontal airlaunch are dubious at best. The additional costs to engineer, build, test, support, and operate such a cutting edge aircraft are going to hard to match against a rather technologically straightforward, efficient, and relatively cheap vertical liftoff and ascent "traditional" rocket vehicle, such as Falcon 9. After seeing literally dozens if not hundreds of these proposals come and go, ALL of them promising to "revolutionize the space launch industry", all I can say is, "I'll believe it when I see it". Til then it's all hype. Later! OL JR 
__________________
The X-87B Cruise Basselope-- THE ultimate weapon in the arsenal of Homeland Defence and only $52 million per round!
|
| Google Adsense |
|
#7
06-16-2013, 04:11 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
This is my "other hobby"-- (reading everything I can get about the space program, which I've been doing voraciously for the last 7-8 years...) Later! OL JR
__________________
The X-87B Cruise Basselope-- THE ultimate weapon in the arsenal of Homeland Defence and only $52 million per round!
|
|
#8
06-16-2013, 04:36 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
One thing I'm looking at with the size of the Stratolauncher is where are they gonna take off and land from?
The reason the 747 and Airbus A380 are the biggest planes are because airport runways can't handle anything bigger weight- or width-wise. I'm sure they'll build a dedicated runway just for it to take off and land on....but what happens in an emergency, and it can't make it back to that runway...? Look at the Space Shuttle. It could land in Cape Canaveral, Florida; Edwards AFB, CA; and I believe 1 other runway in another country. If any of those were closed for weather, they didn't even try to land it.
|
|
#9
06-16-2013, 04:46 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
|
|
#10
06-16-2013, 04:49 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
That still leaves them with only 2 strips they can operate from. Maybe enough... But if I were flying it, I'd feel a lot more comfortable if in an emergency, I could put it down anywhere.
|
| Google Adsense |
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
