Tech billionaires aim for cheaper spaceflight, Seattle Times
“Originally, SpaceX was to provide the booster rocket; Vulcan then switched to relying on rocket-maker Orbital ATK. As recently as last fall, Beames spoke about a plan to put a human-crewed spacecraft developed by Sierra Nevada on the tip of the Orbital booster rocket. But now that human spaceflight plan is shelved, along with Orbital’s planned rocket. Beames said Orbital’s rocket “was not hitting the economic sweet spot to generate revenue,” so Vulcan has reopened the design plan and is “evaluating over 70 different launch vehicle variants.”

Biologist, Explorers Club Fellow, ex-NASA Space Biologist and Payload integrator, Editor of NASAWatch.com and Astrobiology.com, Lapsed climber, Explorer, Synaesthete, Former Challenger Center board member...

23 replies on “Stratolaunch Won't Be Launching Humans”

  1. They will never close the business case with a purpose-built carrier aircraft of that size.

    1. I’ve wondered whether they could get the size down by using aerial refuelling. (Not of the aircraft, but to fuel a liquid rocket stage.)

      Most of that wingspan and engine power is required to accelerate to take-off speed within the length of a runway, while carrying the weight of the fully fuelled booster. Once it’s at speed and altitude, the amount of power and lift required is greatly reduced. So by moving some of the weight onto other aircraft (refuelling tankers), you should be able to greatly reduce the size of the carrier.

      [Example, IIRC, F9’s upper stage has a dry mass of less than 10 tonnes and a fuel mass of over 80 tonnes.]

      You lose out in the complexity of refuelling, of course, but you gain much more in moving back to a move conventional sized aircraft which can be developed faster.

      1. The aircraft’s size is more or less set in stone at this stage of development.

        The main issue is finding a rocket that can be more or less be operated economically.

        1. Step one to (non-)economical orbital launch: Design, build, and test the biggest one-off aircraft possible…

          1. I agree completely with Jeff2Space… They should have asked Orbital how much they spend on maintaining their L-1011 used to launch the small Pegasus XL. Aircraft maintenance costs have nothing to do with launching the rocket but with the FAA inspections and requirements. At least they are using some cannibalized 747 components, which means some spare parts should be available. I do not think this approach is going to pay off, but good luck with that.

      2. Easier, simpler, and cheaper just to build a big rocket. SpaceX is going to clean everyone’s clock. Only Blue Origin has a shot at them.

      3. I wonder if any of 70 rocket companies are considering in flight fueling.
        How big a payload could you get to orbit on this thing with in flight fueling?

        1. DTARS – I’m curious how you tally up 70 companies. I know there are a lot of rocket companies out there right now, but I can’t come up with 70. Update: NEVER MIND. I see the original article quotes 70 variants of rockets.

    1. For scaling purposes only, the Stratolaunch plane can carry 220 tons and Virgin Galactics SpaceShip 2 with a capacity for 8 weighs 10 tons. That differential is one of the reasons I have been far more enthused with Stratolaunch than VG as a technology with a future.

  3. Keith,

    I would be very surprised if human launch isn’t one of the requirements in their trading of “70 different launch vehicle variants”, if only because it’s a more time-responsive market. SNC can keep refining their downsized design and finalize it based on the actual launch approach chosen by Vulcan. “Shelved” doesn’t have to mean “rejected for all time”.

    – Jim

    1. Vulcan CEO gave a time horizon of 10 years before crewed orbital craft. SNC will need some other dreamchaser clients if they wish to be around in the mid-2020s as a human spacecraft supplier.

  6. The only problems I see with them getting the people they want is the fierce competion from other new space companies and also that they appear to be in a troubled condition. That might dissuade some potential recruits.

  7. My guess on rockets is a two step process.
    Maybe short term another Orbital rocket, a modified Minotaur-C which uses a fresh version of the MX missile first stage engine re-purposed military rocket for smaller payloads, and later a Blue Origin BE-4 powered methane rocket for full-size payloads
    This is simple idle speculation completely unencumbered by the facts.

    1. A Minotaur utilizing recycled USAF cores can only be used for US Government sponsored launches.

      1. From Orbital ATK
        Overview
        The Minotaur-C launch vehicle provides a cost-effective and reliable launch capability for satellites
        weighing up to 3,500 pounds (1,590 kilograms). Minotaur-C is currently in production to support
        U.S. Government and commercial customers.

        The Minotaur-C comes in a number of flavors. For goverment launches it uses a lower MX ICBM stage.
        You are correct that it cannot use a re-purposed engine. for commercial launches. It uses the same Castor-120 as the MX missile, but fresh off the production line. I will modify the post.

  9. SpaceX was in a far more precarious state with the Falcon 1 and it still managed to attract the best and brightest and has since triumphed. Courage is a good filter for quality people.

  11. Are you meaning that SpaceX can attract talent due to Musk’s talents and Vulcan is deficient and cannot attract talent?
    And I am glad you have the perception to telepathically determine what i know and need to learn. I will make a point of contacting you before I proceed on any enterprise requiring mental skills to help me with my larnin’

Comments are closed.