Rocket Launching Plane

Dang!

I'm no engineer, but it just seems flimsy without the horizontal stabs being connected. She's a big girl fo sho.
 
Dang!

I'm no engineer, but it just seems flimsy without the horizontal stabs being connected.

I see your point.

It doesn't seem like there would be enough rigidity against torsion, where the middle wing twists so that one fuselage pitches down while the other pitches up. I can imagine this twisting happening back and forth, in an oscillation.

drone2-website.png
 
Just wait until both crews get in a ****ing match with each other.
 
Scaled Composites built it. They've worked with similar configurations before

1725630.jpg
 
without the horizontal stabs being connected
I have a feeling that they probably want to keep a control surface out of the potentially very turbulent airflow caused by any payload they'll be carrying

They've worked with similar configurations before
I understand the need for two engines on each wing, if this had only two engines then an engine failure would be catastrophic, they're so far apart I doubt there's any realistic Vmc on a design like that. But 6 engines? From a 744 that works out to about $320K lbs of thrust, 4 engines from a triple 7 would have just as much, if not more, power. Wonder why the decision to go with 6.. even if the older 744 engines are cheaper that's 50% more in overall maintenance cost (not that money is any object to these people, but then if money is no object why not 4 of the more modern GE190s...)

Also... is there really a need for this? SpaceX and Jeff Bezos seem to be having pretty good success rates launching from the ground. How high can this 6 engined beast realistically get? 50,000 ft? I didn't catch that in the article. Either way, awesome to see such a big beast like that... hope to see it take to the air one day!!
 
Still... for 6 engined mega flying beasts the AN-225 still holds top honor for me, even if it is a bit "smaller" in dimensions it can carry a full 100K lbs more. And it already has fuselage mounts, could just launch off the top of that thing :)

upload_2017-6-1_12-24-20.png
 
Also... is there really a need for this? SpaceX and Jeff Bezos seem to be having pretty good success rates launching from the ground. How high can this 6 engined beast realistically get? 50,000 ft? I didn't catch that in the article. Either way, awesome to see such a big beast like that... hope to see it take to the air one day!!

IIRC, they shooting for ~35,000 feet. It's a significant drop in drag when you launch at that point...ground-launched rockets have to to straight up for a while to minimize the time they're plowing through the atmosphere. They've been putting satellites in orbit from an L-1011 for about twenty years, and from a B-52 for several year before that.

Actual utility? We'll see. Got to believe they've got at least one customer already. The Government has always been interested in rapid-response launch systems, and this might help fill the bill.

Ron Wanttaja
 
There is also the potential for launching closer to the equator to get more of a boost from the earth's rotation.
 
Anybody look close at the fuselage? What a crappy looking build. Looks like a bunch of panels patched together.....weird!
 
Anybody look close at the fuselage? What a crappy looking build. Looks like
Frankly when I saw the picture it did cross my mind that it might be a mock-up.. the fuselage looked very cheap and "fake"
 
Dang!

I'm no engineer, but it just seems flimsy without the horizontal stabs being connected. She's a big girl fo sho.

I'm thinking the very same thing.
Make it a one piece horizontal stabilizer. A whole lot of rigidity for not a lot of cost.
 
One last comment (for now, anyway).
It looks like something from the old "Thunderbirds" TV show.
 
There is also the potential for launching closer to the equator to get more of a boost from the earth's rotation.
Yes, but: You'll need the launch and support infrastructure a lot closer to the equator. The US's current air launch system hasn't gone further than a few hundred miles from its base. The Sea Launch system runs up closer to the equator, but that's a boat (or a set of them, actually).

They might do an equatorial launch or two as a demo, but I suspect they won't be that common.

Ron Wanttaja
 
Newspaper article said the right fuselage. In fact, the other fuselage won't even be pressurized.

Ron Wanttaja

Hope the pilot gets into the right cockpit if there flying it up high. :D
 
SO where does the FAA get involved for approvals? And what approvals must they get before they can fly this beast?
 
SO where does the FAA get involved for approvals? And what approvals must they get before they can fly this beast?
White Knights One and Two are registered as Experimental Research and Development. Suspect the new one will do the same. It's just basically negotiated with the FAA, and there aren't any particular standards it'll have to comply with.

Ron Wanttajs
 
Last edited:
Probably same as most experimentals? They've had a few out there...
 
IIRC, they shooting for ~35,000 feet. It's a significant drop in drag when you launch at that point...ground-launched rockets have to to straight up for a while to minimize the time they're plowing through the atmosphere. They've been putting satellites in orbit from an L-1011 for about twenty years, and from a B-52 for several year before that.
While it's higher altitude and lower drag, isn't the pull-up to get on trajectory pretty expensive (in terms of drag and fuel)? I know the trade doesn't work for everyone.

Nauga,
and Fudd's first law of opposition
 
While it's higher altitude and lower drag, isn't the pull-up to get on trajectory pretty expensive (in terms of drag and fuel)? I know the trade doesn't work for everyone.
It's been 20 years since I had a payload ride a Pegasus, but I believe the L-1011 drops the rocket while in level flight.

seawifs_launch_diagram.jpeg



Remember, you don't WANT the rocket pointing up. You need to gain some altitude, yes, but the main goal is to get the horizontal velocity cranked up to Mach 25 or so. Traditional rockets start vertical to punch out of the atmosphere as fast as they can; launching at 35,000 feet gives them a head start.

Ron Wanttaja
 
BTW- This isn't real right? It's like those pictures that show "World's biggest planes with 12 engines"
 
Wonder which cockpit they'll fly it from?
This is one of those distinct types where central European pilots are required to fly from the left cockpit.

Nauga,
and his geek humor
 
What could possibly go wrong? It's cool, but why so much hassle. I think the approach Spacex is taking is the most logical way to get heavy loads into space.
 
What could possibly go wrong? It's cool, but why so much hassle.
To me, the biggest issue is the launch aircraft bottleneck. If they have only one airplane and something happens to it, all your customers are screwed. They need to build a second one to have a backup. I mean, you've got almost a half-million pounds of rocket fuel hanging from the center section. "It's a fine line between a bomb and a rocket...and the finer the line, the better the rocket."

One of the sales points on rides like this is lower loads during launch. Unfortunately, that means that your customers sometimes DESIGN to take advantage to the lower levels, which means they're out of luck if the airplane is out of the picture. In any case, it typically takes 2-3 years to get on a launch manifest, so the impact on your schedule depends on how close you were originally to launching.

Speaking of the rocket, I see Stratolaunch Systems is now on its third vendor for the rocket. This is not a good sign. The Wikipedia article on the project says that the second vendor "...was not achieving design economic goals..." This sounds like the marketeers wrote checks the engineers couldn't cash. Been on programs where that happened.

Ron Wanttaja
 
Back
Top