I was a little suprised that there is no thread covering the production of this amazing aircraft. I checked but didn’t find any thread. Please delete if I am wrong.

Stratolaunch‘s carrier aircraft is taking shape and some pictures are already available:

Source: http://stratolaunchsystems.com/


Source: http://aviationweek.com/blog/inside-rocs-lair

Source: http://aviationweek.com/blog/inside-rocs-lair

It seems to me they didn’t use as much from the ex-UA B744 as initially planned.
View Large View MediumPhoto © Ian TateView Large View MediumPhoto © Nicholas Young
The engines, the MLG (??) the NLG (??) and the cockpit section (??). Can anyone confirm?

What was the second B744 they wanted to use for building the carrier aircraft?

It's bloody huge!
.
.
.

Jesus, that thing is insane!

Just had a look on the Wikipedia article on it;
"The aircraft will be powered by six 56,000 lbf (250 kN) Pratt & Whitney PW4056 engines[13] that were obtained from "two used 747-400s that will be cannibalized for engines, avionics, flight deck, landing gear and other proven systems that can be recycled to cut development costs."[5] As of April 2012, two former United Airlines Boeing 747-400 aircraft (Serial numbers 28715 & 28716) have been acquired and are currently stored at the Mojave Air & Space Port."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scaled_Composites_Stratolaunch

Quoting ZANL188 (Reply 1): It's bloody huge!

Well, that's why I thought it deserves its own thread. It will be the largest aircraft by wingspan.

Quoting Wingtip1005 (Reply 2): two former United Airlines Boeing 747-400 aircraft (Serial numbers 28715 & 28716) have been acquired [...]

Oh, thanks! So that piece of information was in the Wikipedia-article as well. Seems as if I have overlooked it...
So the other one is cn 28715. The last picture in a.net's database is about three years old and shows that airframe without cockpit section:

View Large View Medium

Photo © Rainer Bexten


Obviously, they started with cn 28715.

A few partial images are starting to trickle out....

Enjoy!

http://aerospace.vulcan.com/stratolaunch

I am also very happy to beat KarelXWB to the punch, he seems to often be omniscient with respect to aviation interests and posting news "first"! Is he (?) even human?

Cheers !

SLCPilot

Quoting SLCPilot (Reply 4): A few partial images are starting to trickle out.... Enjoy!

Not a new Picture, just a rendering how it will look like:



OK, it's just a Rendering but would you pull such a large... correction: THE largest aircraft ... from one of its two fuselages only?

Found two new Pictures as the carrier aircraft nears completion:




Source: http://spacenews.com/stratolaunch-seeks ... ompletion/

That's one sick looking airplane!

I thought they were just going to used chopped 744 fuselages?

TWA772LR wrote:

That's one sick looking airplane!

I thought they were just going to used chopped 744 fuselages?

That was never the plan. They just wanted the mechanical systems, engines, and avionics.

According to the Stratolaunch Wikipedia page it requires a runway of at least 12,000 feet. I'm curious about how wide a runway is required. Most 12,000 foot runways in the US aren't wider than 150 feet. Will this aircraft only be able to operate out of dry lake bed runways?

flyingclrs727 wrote:

TWA772LR wrote:

That's one sick looking airplane!

I thought they were just going to used chopped 744 fuselages?

That was never the plan. They just wanted the mechanical systems, engines, and avionics.

.. and the flight deck.

zanl188 wrote:

flyingclrs727 wrote:

TWA772LR wrote:

That's one sick looking airplane!

I thought they were just going to used chopped 744 fuselages?

That was never the plan. They just wanted the mechanical systems, engines, and avionics.

.. and the flight deck.

Yes, of course.

Burt Rutan is using all the tried and true systems from the 747-400. There's no point in designing those things from scratch at a cost of billions of dollars when they already exist and have FAA certifications. Systems like the landing gear are already of a sufficient scale for the Stratolauncher considering two sets of 747 landing gear will be used. Another advantage to this approach is that if any parts need to be fixed or rebuilt, they can be worked on by existing commercial service providers or exchanged for already rebuilt 747 parts.

What's new is the structure, the fuselage, wing, empanages, tails, etc.

flyingclrs727 wrote:

TWA772LR wrote:

That's one sick looking airplane!

I thought they were just going to used chopped 744 fuselages?

That was never the plan. They just wanted the mechanical systems, engines, and avionics.

The original renderings appeared to show 747 nose sections mated to all-new structure for the rest of the fuselage. Redesigning the rest of the fuselage was obviously necessary as the 747 is a low-wing aircraft and the Stratolaunch is a high wing. I never heard why they changed to a custom forward fuselage, but I suppose it was part of the change to a rectangular fuselage, which I believe simplified the fuselage structure. They can get away with that because most of the fuselage is unpressurized.

Found two new pictures:


Source: http://www.nextbigfuture.com/2016/06/pa ... -ever.html


Source: http://www.geekwire.com/2016/paul-allen ... -airplane/

And for those who can't wait (like me): a Chinese website showing an animation of the roll-out (????):
http://i.ifeng.com/nnews/worldview/shar ... 79356&mid=

My two cents -- and it's just that, nothing more -- "Stratolaunch" is a very misguided concept...

1. Air launch-to-orbit rockets look good on paper due to 1st stage booster weight reduction -- but in practice are too awkward to economically operate. Yes, I know the Orbital Pegasus works with the L-1011, but that is a very modest launcher, all small solid-rocket-motor stages, and barely justifiable at that. Virgin Galactic's similar concept is no more than suborbital amusement park ride.

2. Booster or Aircraft faults require return for landing before launch -- imagine that to be risky with heavy booster attached.

3. Give them credit for trying to make this hybrid 747/rocket-carrier work, but this aircraft will require FAA certification and all the costs that go along with that.

4. SpaceX and others have shown major progress on launcher cost reduction using standard ground launch pad...more cost reduction to come via reuse of booster stage(s). Doubt Stratolaunch costs along with risk can compete.

5. Not a betting person -- but anyone giving odds that this contraption will ever fly? Reeks of megalomania to me...the next Spruce Goose here.

QuarkFly wrote:

3. Give them credit for trying to make this hybrid 747/rocket-carrier work, but this aircraft will require FAA certification and all the costs that go along with that.

4. SpaceX and others have shown major progress on launcher cost reduction using standard ground launch pad...more cost reduction to come via reuse of booster stage(s). Doubt Stratolaunch costs along with risk can compete.

3. Will it? They can't fly it as experimental and get some concessions there?

4. If there was any warning flag about this, it would be Musk's withdrawal in favour of reducing costs by reusing stages. But that doesn't mean it's inherently a bad idea. The two concepts can coexist.


If nothing else, I want this to succeed because it's huge and would look mental. Just seeing a first flight video would be enough for me

QuarkFly wrote:

My two cents -- and it's just that, nothing more -- "Stratolaunch" is a very misguided concept...

1. Air launch-to-orbit rockets look good on paper due to 1st stage booster weight reduction -- but in practice are too awkward to economically operate. Yes, I know the Orbital Pegasus works with the L-1011, but that is a very modest launcher, all small solid-rocket-motor stages, and barely justifiable at that. Virgin Galactic's similar concept is no more than suborbital amusement park ride.

2. Booster or Aircraft faults require return for landing before launch -- imagine that to be risky with heavy booster attached.

3. Give them credit for trying to make this hybrid 747/rocket-carrier work, but this aircraft will require FAA certification and all the costs that go along with that.

4. SpaceX and others have shown major progress on launcher cost reduction using standard ground launch pad...more cost reduction to come via reuse of booster stage(s). Doubt Stratolaunch costs along with risk can compete.

5. Not a betting person -- but anyone giving odds that this contraption will ever fly? Reeks of megalomania to me...the next Spruce Goose here.

I'm betting against you. There are some very smart people working on this thing. And they have money. The same kind of things were said about SpaceX as well. "Landing a booster on a ship in the Atlantic ocean? Yeah right". They were proven wrong, and so will you. Scaled Composites are the builders of this thing, they know very well what they're doing. Same thing can be said about Orbital ATK who obviously believe in them. It will fly.

Elon Musk's reason for using reuseable boosters is that SpaceX's ultimate goal is to colonize Mars. What they're doing now is basically the very baby steps. They're learning rocketry as they go. Airplanes can't land on Mars or other planets because of extremely thin atmosphere, so the technology is basically useless for SpaceX's mission.

angad84 wrote:

3. Will it? They can't fly it as experimental and get some concessions there?

True, the aircraft may be considered experimental for a while, although it still will have to show some level of safety and testing -- I don't know enough about FAA regulations to determine if it could operate indefinitely as an experimental aircraft providing regular launch services...but as I suggested -- I don't think it will ever get to that point.

JetBuddy wrote:

I'm betting against you. There are some very smart people working on this thing. And they have money. The same kind of things were said about SpaceX as well. "Landing a booster on a ship in the Atlantic ocean? Yeah right". They were proven wrong, and so will you. Scaled Composites are the builders of this thing, they know very well what they're doing. Same thing can be said about Orbital ATK who obviously believe in them. It will fly.

Elon Musk's reason for using reusable boosters is that SpaceX's ultimate goal is to colonize Mars. What they're doing now is basically the very baby steps. They're learning rocketry as they go. Airplanes can't land on Mars or other planets because of extremely thin atmosphere, so the technology is basically useless for SpaceX's mission.

Well cheers!! Thank-you for taking me up on that bet Long odds, I still think, especially for Paul Allen and his Microsoft money he's betting -- they still don't have an actual booster rocket to hang from this behemoth aircraft...http://www.parabolicarc.com/2016/05/04/ ... ns-mystery

...it actually was going to be Elon Musk and SpaceX providing the rocket for Stratolaunch, but SpaceX backed out a few years ago -- I don't blame them. Scaled Composites is great, I agree, and I am not knocking them when I point out that it was a smaller air launched Virgin Galactic ship by Scaled Composites that crashed, killing a pilot a few years ago and Scaled-Composites does not build orbital boosters. It's just that I think this air-launched concept has been proposed so many times for satellites, ICBM's, etc, but has never panned out except for small scale projects like Pegasus or sub-orbitals like SpaceShipOne or X-15. SpaceX landing the first stage is what may actually economically kill competitors like Stratolaunch

So, we will wait to see how the dice roll on our bets!! Will be interesting to watch.

Stratolaunchs niche market will be launch on demand & launches to orbits fixed launch sites cannot attain......

In my opinion, Stratolaunch is a VERY high risk endevor, with marginal returns at best. Any number of small technical failures could put the entire program at risk. Even something as small as gear extension problem could damage the aircraft and make it all for not, customized rocket and all.

Comparisons to SpaceX aren't apples to apples in my opinion. A failure to land a first stage may still have happy and satisfied customer if the satellite makes it to orbit. Even a complete failure of a single mission will not doom the entire program.

That being said, I personally find the aircraft and project very exciting. It is surprising that the aircraft is this far along with no obvious, publicly known launch rocket. It's my guess that the airplane might end up a specialized outsized payload carrier, with a huge pod in the middle. The ground handling and maneuvering of the aircraft will also certainly be an issue.

Has anybody done the math...could the plane land at Oshkosh?!?

Cheers!

SLCPilot

Slcpilot wrote:

Comparisons to SpaceX aren't apples to apples in my opinion. A failure to land a first stage may still have happy and satisfied customer if the satellite makes it to orbit. Even a complete failure of a single mission will not doom the entire program.

Man, I didn't really want to predict a SpaceX rocket failure.

It is still amazing to me that such a large aircraft is being built with so little fan-fare. It's also amazing that the system has such an obvious missing link (launch rocket). Something still doesn't add up.

In the meantime, I guess we will all wait and look forward to the next release of pictures of the plane. It will be neat to see it outside when that finally happens. It would be neat to take bets on when and if it ever flies.

My guess.... 2 flights in 2018. Plane parked at the entrance to the Mojave Airport for display. I'd love to be proven wrong. Good luck Scaled!

Cheers!

SLCPilot

Some new pictures taken during Paul Allen's visit in the Hangar in the middle of December last year:








Source: https://twitter.com/stratolaunch?lang=de

Does this thing have a first flight plan yet?

Hi,

Here, en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scaled_Composites_Stratolaunch, it says "In June 2016, the initial aircraft is nearing completion, with Scaled Composites having 300 people working on the project. Only a few composite parts have yet to be made, assembled, and installed on the aircraft body. Overall assembly is 76% complete."

and here, pt.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scaled_Composites_Stratolaunch, it says "Em junho de 2016, a construção do primeiro protótipo foi 76% concluída". (In june 2016 76% of first prototype assembly is complete)

so if a smooth path is achieved and having, as term of comparisson, other "big" aircraft projects, where should we be now, and when should, probably, be the roll-out date? (altough we are talking about a totally differente kind of plane/project.

There are still two remaining issues with this aircraft.

1) they still don't have a deal with a space launch company to carry and launch rockets. That kills the primary business case for this vehicle.

2) They have not announced any development of a secondary cargo capability for this plane. With a stated goal of being able to lift 500,000 lbs of mass, this could make a reasonable alternative to the AN-225. It just needs an aerodynamic, large cargo module for the rocket mount.

I admit that it has other issues with regard to limited airport operational compatibility (excess wingspan and gear track width are going to limit usable airfields) and using engines that are nearing the end of their service lives.

This plane is nothing but a risk reduced testbed. It is an elaborate proof of concept at best. For this to ever be a viable enterprise, they need to demonstrate extraordinary capability and economy while doing an immense amount of research into operations. Then, find buyers for a second generation build of an improved model that actually uses modern engines with improved fuel burn and maintenance characteristics with other operational efficiency tweaks. There will need to be economies of scale, so the production run will require a nontrivial number of frames.

I am confident that we will see this thing fly, more often than the spruce goose ever did. It might even manage an FAA certificate for limited commercial use. But I can't see a business case for it ever developing in its lifetime. It would need a regular stream (read: multiple times a month) of heavy launches to make it worth while to maintain. With one space station, no regular commercial space activity that isn't satisfied by existing systems, and nothing big on the hotizon, what will be the point?

Hi everyone,


this might be a beginning: http://spacenews.com/stratolaunch-to-la ... s-rockets/

"...Under the agreement, Orbital ATK will provide “multiple” Pegasus XL rockets, currently launched by its own Lockheed L-1011 aircraft, to Stratolaunch Systems, which will launch them from its own aircraft...."

It is also refered to at the end of this article: http://spacenews.com/pegasus-launches-h ... atellites/

and also at the beginning of this : http://spacenews.com/orbital-atk-says-n ... e-pegasus/

so , altough it´s not a guarantee of solid business at least it´s something.

Take care

This looks like a marriage of convenience more than an ideal fit. Even a trio of Pegasus II rockets is trivial for Stratolaunch. This deal gets Stratolaunch at least a regular customer and gives orbital an out to retire the old tristar. This is not what the original plan was by far.

Hmmm,..this monster aircraft is going to launch Pegasus, a very small launcher that is likely to be phased out soon -- and can be easily launched from a converted airliner. Looks like multiple Pegasus stowed under the wing. Not sure it would ever makes sense to simultaneously air-launch more than one satellite from different launchers, would stress ground preparations, also telemetry, tracking, etc.

Looks desperate, this giant aircraft never made much sense and it now shows. Nobody is ever going to spend billions to create or modify a rocket for Stratolaunch. Lets see this aircraft fly first anyhow. Agree with the "Spruce Goose" comments above and Paul Allen is no Howard Hughes. Still a good bet it will never fly.

It might be saved if they can manage to perfect a cargo module for it.

Hi everyone,

So, the question remains.... any first flight date yet? Or even just a roll-out date?

In wich stage is the assembly at this time? 76% last june...... 80, 85% now?

Bye everyone,

LightningZ71 wrote:

This looks like a marriage of convenience more than an ideal fit. Even a trio of Pegasus II rockets is trivial for Stratolaunch. This deal gets Stratolaunch at least a regular customer and gives orbital an out to retire the old tristar. This is not what the original plan was by far.

I agree. If another platform is available, there's little reason to keep the overhead of maintaining Stargazer for a handful of flights per year, versus the incremental cost of adding flights to Stratolaunch's schedule.

But the primary launcher has to cover most of Stratolaunch's operating costs.

tapairbus370 wrote:

In wich stage is the assembly at this time? 76% last june...... 80, 85% now?

I'm not even sure what the 76% meant. Completing structural assembly is a very different milestone from completing systems integration.

Good news for anyone interested,

http://www.popularmechanics.com/flight/ ... cialflowFB


Let´s hope everything goes well during tests.

Here's another story on today's roll-out and fueling test...

https://arstechnica.com/science/2017/05 ... it-is-big/

Seems Paul Allen of Microsoft fame has been secretly building a plane larger than Spruce Goose with "6 747 sized engines". Rolled it outside today. Meant to be used as an airborne rocket launch platform. Love the innovation

http://www.sfgate.com/business/article/ ... 186611.php

Is it really innovative? Right now it's a really big model Frankenstein toy

How big of a conveyor belt will it need to get off the ground?

I don't get the purpose of two cockpits.

Wow. That's impressive. I thought April 1 had passed.

Kidding aside, its laudable that people like Allen and Richard Branson are willing to spend their own money on visionary aerospace projects that airlines and commercial manufacturers have given up on.

I only wish it was an SST prototype.

I remember in the early '80s there was an idea similar to this one. The differences are the idea uses two Boeing 747 fuselages and two out of the six engines are mounted on the middle wing (the wing that connects the two fuselages. And it was designed to carry passengers. The designer calculated that the operational cost of that aircraft would be lower than the operational cost of two separate 747s.

tapairbus370 wrote:

Good news for anyone interested,
http://www.popularmechanics.com/flight/ ... cialflowFB

Let´s hope everything goes well during tests.

LightningZ71 wrote:

Here's another story on today's roll-out and fueling test...

https://arstechnica.com/science/2017/05 ... it-is-big/

@ tapairbus370 &LightningZ71: thanks for the two links. Just two days ago I had searched for some news but didn't find anything new. So this was a nice surprise, this morning.

Another picture:

Source: http://www.drivespark.com/off-beat/stra ... 22310.html
Two questions/comments:

1.) for a moment, I thought they have modified the cockpit windows (ex UA-747-cockpit sections) but it seems just an optical illusion.

2.) what about the nose cones? It does not look as if they want to attach anything, or am I wrong?

Quite an amazing design... I have so many questions. Mostly related to structural strength.

The nose section looks like an anteater. I hope they put a nose-dome on it if only to reduce drag...

Natflyer wrote:

The nose section looks like an anteater. I hope they put a nose-dome on it if only to reduce drag...

That's an incomplete aircraft, so yes, it will get probably get weather radar(s?) and radomes.

http://time.com/4800318/stratolaunch/

Not a lot of details given. Does anyone have it's dimensions? I know there is more than one way it can be the "biggest", but it certainly doesn't have the volume of the Hercules or AN-225. They say rocket launcher, so is it to be used in military functions? (That would surprise me, coming from Paul Allen) or is it meant to replace rockets by launching Satellites without needing a rocket.

It's an impressive aircraft. Looks a bit fragile in the center part, but I'm sure these engineers know what they're doing. I believe it's using 747 avionics and systems. If you look at the nose section of each part, it's got 747 windows. They'll put a rocket between the two fuselage parts and launch it at high altitude. I'm sure they'll deliver both civilian and military rockets, just like SpaceX.

This thread belongs in the Miltiary and Space forums, maybe a moderator could move it?

The center portion of the aircraft looks very fragile, but I'm sure they know what they're doing. It's Scaled Composites' design after all. Will be very interesting to follow this project forward. Do they have a customer yet?

JetBuddy wrote:

It's an impressive aircraft. Looks a bit fragile in the center part, but I'm sure these engineers know what they're doing. I believe it's using 747 avionics and systems. If you look at the nose section of each part, it's got 747 windows. They'll put a rocket between the two fuselage parts and launch it at high altitude. I'm sure they'll deliver both civilian and military rockets, just like SpaceX.

This thread belongs in the Miltiary and Space forums, maybe a moderator could move it?

There is already one: viewtopic.php?f=10&t=1028393

Gonna need one heck of a runway.

Is there really a need for two flight decks? I could see one being more of an observation role.

Thoughts?

By dropping the cost per satellite launched, a number of economics are solved. Each satellite will not have to do so much, nor will it have to last so long. Not only cheaper launch, much cheaper satellites, so a lot more in the sky. It would be interesting to see a graph of how much per pound to launch. An awful lot of our essential weather satellites need to be geosynchronous. Right now we are so dependent upon one or two satellites for particular weather monitoring. Cheap low orbiting satellites mean the possibility of good wifi/cellular service (or whatever technology) literally covering the face of the earth.