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?

Why it's a plane, not a space ship, and it's certainly not a military plane.

Wow I didn't think this project would actually get anywhere. Very cool

What was the business case for airplanes prior to the Wright Flier? Did anyone at the time invision the global network of today or was it just faster mail service?

I don't understand what the point of this aircraft is at all.... running 6 engines, how is that more economical that running two separate aircraft with twin engines or a single aircraft with quad? Also two cockpits on each fuselage, how on earth do you coordinate with that? And fly an aircraft like that? This seems like a total waste of money

JetBuddy wrote:

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?

Stratolaunch Systems is the customer. The airframe was developed for their satellite launch business.

BobbyPSP wrote:

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

Thoughts?

One is used. The other is empty and unpressurized. Maybe ballast added to match the active one?

Thought that I read somewhere that it only has a operating range of 1500nm or thereabout when a rocket stage is added is cargo.
Thought I had the source somewhere but I believe it was dutch so I got to find a english one.

Add to this that the stratolauncher is probably only capable of taking of from the biggest of runways. That said, I don't even know if the width of the wheel base fits on any runway. And if it does, it has to land very, very precisely on the centerline without crosswinds or crabbing because those wheels have absolutely no space.
So that means you can only launch if from a few airstrips I would guess, and clear or light wheather which is rather limiting.
But I don't have all the facts, few people do ofcourse as this is a new project. But I would love how they're going to tackle this issue. But I'm sure it is already thought out one way or another, otherwise they wouldn't have build it.

Oh and to answer above questions. It has 2 fuselages because it is intended to carry jettisonable heavy cargo like rocket stages to 40.000 feet. The only way to carry the weight and volume of such a cargo is by attaching it in the center. Like Virgin galactics spaceship two. Attaching it in the center is the only real way to jettison it safely. And you can't do that with 1 fuselage.
As for navigating with 2 cockpits. I think only 1 is a active cockpit. They also land harriers in tight spots. So to overcome the situational awareness of sitting on the far left/right of the aircraft involves training and more training and possible instrument changes and whatnot. But I don't see how that would be impossible to pilot.

Yeah elsewhere I read that only 1 fuselage will be pressurized. Whether the other side has ballast or systems is a question.

To fly it in the sky seems doable from one side. However, takeoff and landing would need to rely on a video monitor from a camera that is on the aircraft's centerline, just my armchair thought. Seems possible.

Stitch wrote:

JetBuddy wrote:

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?

Stratolaunch Systems is the customer. The airframe was developed for their satellite launch business.

I think he was asking if there's a customer for the launch services yet, rather than somebody planning to operate the aircraft.

Orbital Sciences is planning to retire the L1011 they use to carry their small Pegasus rocket and partner with Stratolaunch, rather than maintain their own aircraft solely for a small handful of launches. That can't reasonably be the sole plan for this carrier aircraft, however.

As far as I know, they don't have any customers for a rocket sized for this aircraft...or even have the rocket itself. They originally planned to contract with SpaceX, but SpaceX backed out of the partnership after looking at what it would take to adapt their rockets to air launching (I suspect there were cost-share disagreements, too). Then they contracted with Orbital to develop a new rocket, but apparently weren't happy with the performance it would have achieved. I lost track of the planned launch vehicle after that, and Allen seems to have gotten quiet about that part of the business plan.

I'm sure something is in work, but it seems like Allen doesn't want to release details any more until he's sure the plan isn't going to change again.

Passedv1 wrote:

What was the business case for airplanes prior to the Wright Flier? Did anyone at the time invision the global network of today or was it just faster mail service?

That's not a very apt comparison. They were creating a market for the first time. Stratolaunch needs to break into an already crowded launch market.

In either case though, the project is funded out of somebody's spare spending cash. Neither one strictly needs a viable business case. If Allen never makes a penny of net profit on this venture, I suspect he'll still be too busy enjoying the novelty of owning the world's largest aircraft and the challenge of trying to compete with Musk and Bezos to waste time crying about it.

From another forum I frequent. Nobody really has a good answer so far! I challenge Anet to come up with the real purpose!

Cheers! SLCPilot

"For the life of me I can't figure out what the four large yellow fairings are attached to the side of the fuselages under the wings. The fittings to mount them seems substantial so it seems they will be mounted during flight. They almost seem like speedbrakes."

Slcpilot wrote:

"For the life of me I can't figure out what the four large yellow fairings are attached to the side of the fuselages under the wings. The fittings to mount them seems substantial so it seems they will be mounted during flight. They almost seem like speedbrakes."

I'm sticking with what I said over there. They are not flight hardware. They are most likely tooling fittings for supporting the aircraft off of its landing gear and/or holding it rigidly during the assembly process.

You can see a bunch of similar fittings on a less complete aircraft here:
http://www.airbus.com/fileadmin/media_g ... ll_out.jpg

Another picture showing the MLG, well, half of it:


Source: http://www.stratolaunch.com/gallery.html

Slcpilot wrote:

From another forum I frequent. Nobody really has a good answer so far! I challenge Anet to come up with the real purpose!

Cheers! SLCPilot

"For the life of me I can't figure out what the four large yellow fairings are attached to the side of the fuselages under the wings. The fittings to mount them seems substantial so it seems they will be mounted during flight. They almost seem like speedbrakes."

It's a jack point. I'm sure it will be removed when the aircraft is done.

iamlucky13 wrote:

I'm sticking with what I said over there. They are not flight hardware.

Industry practice is to paint all tooling and jigs, temporary fixture/hardware yellow.

semiless wrote:

The only way to carry the weight and volume of such a cargo is by attaching it in the center.

Yes just imagine the CG shift when the payloads drops off. This problems have been around for a long time with large bombers.

ikramerica wrote:

Maybe ballast added to match the active one?

It only makes sense if most of the "ballast" was fuel anything else would make me think less of the design team.

XLA2008 wrote:

I don't understand what the point of this aircraft is at all.... running 6 engines

I get your thinking, but the smaller engines were the only ones they can get their hands on at a reasonable price. All the large GE engines are being used by the 777's.. Also, it is important to note that they are salvaging the system from the two 747's. The engines match the systems and does not need new software for controls.

QuarkFly wrote:

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.

Awkward, perhaps, until you work out the kinks.

There are several benefits that this concept has over the two vertical launch system.

One is the type of fuel that is used get the system off the ground. You are much safer using jet fuel to get to 40K ft than using LOX. From there, solid fuel can take over. Both of these fuel type require less infrastructure to store and transport.

The other is you are not limited by launch site. There are probably more 12,000ft run ways than there are space launch facilities.

Finally, if you are to abort, you jettison the rocket. From there, you can separate the booster from the payload. The payload parachute to the ground, the plane return to the landing strip, the booster is detonated. You lose less hardware.

bt

According to the render in this pic posted a year ago by the OP, the port fuselage's nose is quiet different from that of the starboard's. So what's the reason for the change?
Make economic use of the otherwise discarded nose of the second 747 and save a few dollars on designing and fabricating a new nose?

Hello,

Anyone wants to try to guess when will it fly?

More, will it have to do all the ground tests that normaly comercial planes do? Or this is different?


Well, I throw the first (and almost totaly blind) stone: It will fly in...... the end of 2018/ beggining 2019.

Flighty wrote:

Yeah elsewhere I read that only 1 fuselage will be pressurized. Whether the other side has ballast or systems is a question.
To fly it in the sky seems doable from one side. However, takeoff and landing would need to rely on a video monitor from a camera that is on the aircraft's centerline, just my armchair thought. Seems possible.

To be clearer, only the operational cockpit is pressurized. The fuselages are NOT pressurized, can never be because of the shape.
A pressure vessel - especially with the Roc's 40,000 ft ceiling - wouldn't work with flat body plates.

And yes, you're right about flying from one side being doable. Its been done before though on much smaller planes.
There are some previous aircraft with twin fuselages flown from one of them.
An example is the P-82 Twin Mustang; with later models having only one pilot in the port cockpit and a radar operator in the starboard.
Even in the earlier models with both cockpits manned by pilots, its to accord the flight crew some rests as they alternately switch off control of the aircraft on marathon endurance flights.
And on takeoffs/landings, only one pilot is at the controls, with the other effectively a passenger.

Also, down at Terra-firma, except for the McLaren F1 sportscar and maybe one or two others (can't recall exactly), almost all road-legal vehicles have the driver displaced off center, so humans can easily drive/fly in an offset position.
For the Roc's flyboys, its just more extreme but nothing additional training and practice couldn't take care of.

this plane is absolutely incredible. Can't wait for video of it flying! Does video already exist?

Stratolaunchfan wrote:

this plane is absolutely incredible. Can't wait for video of it flying! Does video already exist?

You mean from the roll out? Yes: http://m.bild.de/video/clip/flugzeuge/g ... obile.html

for example, I am sure there are others on YouTube.

JetBuddy,

Thank you very much for providing definitive proof of what the yellow fixtures do! It took time to find the picture and post it!

Bikerthai,

Thank you for the further explanations.


And a follow-up question since you're both so good! What are the two large blisters on the onboard side of both fuselages? Again, not terribly aerodynamic and very curious. My guess is they are almost certainly payload related. Any chance they are photo stations for drop documentation?

What would be a tiny, inconsequential blister on a normal aircraft is a fitting you could almost stand in on this one!

Cheers!

SLCPilot

So looks like 2 engines and 2 sets of MLG from the 2 united 747-400s are spares. Nevertheless, a question .... why are the 2 nose gear sets set so far back from the flight decks? Could it have anything to do with turning circle or balance on the round with the ATK Rocket mounted in the center?

Another question: from the gallery http://www.stratolaunch.com/gallery.html it looks as if they pulled her out of the hangar with two tractors (sorry, right now I cannot post the relevant picture, it's no. 5 in the gallery). How do you synchronize such a manoeuvre?

Passedv1 wrote:

What was the business case for airplanes prior to the Wright Flier? Did anyone at the time envision the global network of today or was it just faster mail service?

At the time airships looked to be more capable. thus the first airline DELAG "drove" airships. But the ideas existed. ( shipping lines looked to expand there early on.)

Obviously limited capabilities made light goods more attractive to start with.
When capable airframes like the Junkers F13 were available expansion into network oriented passenger transport was fast.
That imho indicates that interest and vision existed before actual availability.

( US seems to have been lagging at the time. A big boost coming from surplus warplanes (smalish fighters) after WWI.)

JetBuddy wrote:

It's a jack point. I'm sure it will be removed when the aircraft is done.

I suspect its use is dual purpose. Jack point and ballast.

N14AZ wrote:

Another question: from the gallery http://www.stratolaunch.com/gallery.html it looks as if they pulled her out of the hangar with two tractors (sorry, right now I cannot post the relevant picture, it's no. 5 in the gallery). How do you synchronize such a manoeuvre?

Very carefully. One tug is lead (I'll guess the green one) and both operators (plus wing walkers & brake rider) are likely in radio communication. Towbars are likely fused to break before the aircraft - so no worries of damaging the aircraft. When everybody's ready lead operator says "lets go" and it rolls out dead slow.

Beats designing and building the massive towbar that would be needed for single tug operation.

Balaguru wrote:

So looks like 2 engines and 2 sets of MLG from the 2 united 747-400s are spares. Nevertheless, a question .... why are the 2 nose gear sets set so far back from the flight decks? Could it have anything to do with turning circle or balance on the round with the ATK Rocket mounted in the center?

Limiting wheel base is critical to reducing turning radius. Just going to have train the pilots to taxi this aircraft very carefully - perhaps with airframe mounted cameras or spotters on the ground. No big deal - it's not going to be flying pax schedules out of JFK.

IMHO those main landing gears look like 747 body gear to me. Regardless all 6 of them appear to be the same. So I'm going to suggest at least 2 of them came from somewhere other than the United 747s. The wing and body gears on the 747 being rather different. 747 body gear can pivot to reduce tire scrub - I'm guessing a needed capability for this aircraft due to odd landing gear geometry.

Here's a pix of a 747-8 landing gear set to illustrate difference between wing and body gear. Wing gear on the outside both right and left.

http://blog.seattlepi.com/aerospace/200 ... blog_last3

In any case it's going to be interesting to watch this aircraft taxi. Lots of things going on...

tapairbus370 wrote:

Hello,

Anyone wants to try to guess when will it fly?

More, will it have to do all the ground tests that normally comercial planes do? Or this is different?

It is different, it's an experimental aircraft and will stay that way. There isn't even a prototype or additional frame to do stress tests, cycling tests etc.

@ zanl188: thanks for your explanations.

Some more pics that I haven't seen before:


Source: http://www.rp-online.de/panorama/auslan ... -1.6858904


Nice title... Source: http://abc7.com/technology/stratolaunch ... r/2059612/

BobbyPSP wrote:

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

Thoughts?

I read in some article that only the right flight deck will be manned. The left one will house flight data gear....but I can't find the article now. However it does seem a bit odd that the windows will remain if there is no human sitting in the left former cockpit. Edit: Oops just read where somebody else addressed this question.

RetiredWeasel wrote:

BobbyPSP wrote:

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

Thoughts?

I read in some article that only the right flight deck will be manned. The left one will house flight data gear....but I can't find the article now. However it does seem a bit odd that the windows will remain if their is no human sitting in the left former cockpit.

Well, it saves a lot on engineering and tooling to have only one type of nose. Plus it's good for balance and the second 747 nose was available from the get go.

Thank you!

Can't find any of it in flight. Just the roll out shot. I will wait patiently.

cosyr wrote:

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

but it certainly doesn't have the volume of the Hercules or AN-225.

The 'Hercules' or C-130 is not even large by any measure compared to most big aircraft overall. An aircraft not even 100' long, with just over a 40,000lb payload and a max take off weight LESS than that of the fastest plane ever made, the SR-71... the Blackbird had a heavier take off weight. It always kills me when people talk like the C-130 is a big plane, the CH-53 Sea Stallion is nearly the same size and as far as 'big' aircraft the C-130 isn't even in contention.

To the topic at hand, I'm a huge fan of weird, crazy, out of the box aircraft and of the biggest planes, so I am super elated that this endeavor is coming to fruition and will be following its progress closely and desperately hoping that all goes well!

HaveBlue wrote:

cosyr wrote:

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

but it certainly doesn't have the volume of the Hercules or AN-225.

The 'Hercules' or C-130 is not even large by any measure compared to most big aircraft overall. An aircraft not even 100' long, with just over a 40,000lb payload and a max take off weight LESS than that of the fastest plane ever made, the SR-71... the Blackbird had a heavier take off weight. It always kills me when people talk like the C-130 is a big plane, the CH-53 Sea Stallion is nearly the same size and as far as 'big' aircraft the C-130 isn't even in contention.

To the topic at hand, I'm a huge fan of weird, crazy, out of the box aircraft and of the biggest planes, so I am super elated that this endeavor is coming to fruition and will be following its progress closely and desperately hoping that all goes well!

I suppose he's referring to the Hughes H-4 Hercules flying boat aka the Spruce Goose. Until the Stratolaunch Roc get into the air in 2019, its still the world's largest aircraft ever flown; in terms of widest wingspan. There's more than one aircraft named Hercules, you know!

edited to add image (it was the absolute largest at the time it was built):


PS. It always kills me when people jumped to wrong conclusions.
Pardon me for paraphrasing you. I couldn't resist.

Just found this (Roc actually look tiny overall compared to the other four behemoths in the illustration:


.....and the page in which it appeared in February 2015:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/ ... plane.html

Slcpilot wrote:

And a follow-up question since you're both so good! What are the two large blisters on the onboard side of both fuselages?

If you are referring to the two large circles aft of the cockpit, my guess would be an observation window (to keep an eye on the payload).

Why on both fuselage?

Answer:

ITMercure wrote:

Well, it saves a lot on engineering and tooling to have only one type of nose.

Not only tooling and engineering but also manufacturing cost and time.

bt

N14AZ wrote:

@ zanl188: thanks for your explanations.

Some more pics that I haven't seen before:


Source: http://www.rp-online.de/panorama/auslan ... -1.6858904


Nice title... Source: http://abc7.com/technology/stratolaunch ... r/2059612/

Looks like a fueling test.

Why is it being called the largest aircraft in the world? The wingspan is the longest, but it's clearly smaller than a 747, A380, AN-225, etc.

NYPECO wrote:

Why is it being called the largest aircraft in the world? The wingspan is the longest, but it's clearly smaller than a 747, A380, AN-225, etc.

PR: take the metric that can be made
to fit the "biggest" moniker and go with that.
No need to be truthful anyway.
see : international $something ~= US and Canada
"worlds" biggest $someotherthing ~= biggest in the US

WIederling wrote:

NYPECO wrote:

Why is it being called the largest aircraft in the world? The wingspan is the longest, but it's clearly smaller than a 747, A380, AN-225, etc.

PR: take the metric that can be made
to fit the "biggest" moniker and go with that.
No need to be truthful anyway.
see : international $something ~= US and Canada
"worlds" biggest $someotherthing ~= biggest in the US

Well what's the projected takeoff weight of the plane plus the upper stage vehicle that takes the satellite into orbit?

NYPECO wrote:

flyingclrs727 wrote:

WIederling wrote:

PR: take the metric that can be made
to fit the "biggest" moniker and go with that.
No need to be truthful anyway.
see : international $something ~= US and Canada
"worlds" biggest $someotherthing ~= biggest in the US

Well what's the projected takeoff weight of the plane plus the upper stage vehicle that takes the satellite into orbit?

According to their website, max takeoff weight is 1,300,000 pounds. So, that kinda answers your question.

NYPECO wrote:

According to their website, max takeoff weight is 1,300,000 pounds. So, that kinda answers your question.

~= 590t
AN-225 : 640t / 1.4mlbs

Hello all,

one step closer to first flight.

Anyone wanna guess a possible date?


http://www.paulallen.com/stratolaunch-a ... e-testing/

Reminds me of "Spock's Brain"....will all the soft/firmware have to be re-written for the FMC and other control avionics? I cannot imagine just "plug and play" with 2 more engines..and the weight differences...

bhill wrote:

Reminds me of "Spock's Brain"....will all the soft/firmware have to be re-written for the FMC and other control avionics? I cannot imagine just "plug and play" with 2 more engines..and the weight differences...

I'd be surprised if that thing is so complex to entail an FMC.
But they might use 2 of the original systems working 3 engines each ?

We do these things because the will to explore the unknown has severely diminished and we need pioneers to at least make some head-way into the great beyond so that we can explore the solar system and our local stars. Whether it succeeds or fails, it'll lay some type of foundation for the future and that's important. Let's see where it'll go! Reaching out to the stars and making people realize our problems here on Earth are minuscule may be the boost we need for humanity.

WIederling wrote:

bhill wrote:

Reminds me of "Spock's Brain"....will all the soft/firmware have to be re-written for the FMC and other control avionics? I cannot imagine just "plug and play" with 2 more engines..and the weight differences...

I'd be surprised if that thing is so complex to entail an FMC.
But they might use 2 of the original systems working 3 engines each ?

I agree, no FMS required but just to make sure there's no confusion here, you don't need the FMC to control the engines.

I would think they would want to keep everything as simple as possible. No FBW just old fashioned cables and a fairly simple instrument package supplemented with iPads. Writing a whole bunch of software for a one off airplane and certifying it would not be easy or cheap.

Forget about FMCs... A Garmin avionics suite plucked out of their GA catalogue would, ironically, give this bird a way better cockpit and navigation than the 747s it was born from.

The FMCs on the 747 are somewhat linked to the engine EECs as they provide a way of controlling the thrust limits and setting takeoff and climb power through the autothrust system.
I suspect that this can be easily circumvented throught a couple of switches. The Stratolaunch will probably use a very basic autothrust with simplified engine management (no takeoff derates, only one climb power setting, etc.).

Really look forward to seeing this aircraft flying.But sadly like some of the early posters I fear this project will be a total commercial failure.
I can see way back when -when Paul Allen won the Ansar prise with a mini version of this concept that it was logical to assume that if you could upscale X10 then you might have a winner.Look at pre spacex launch costs!Off the planet !(intended).
However Spacex did arrive,did return the booster (after many failures).Now their 'Block5 -final version of the falcon9 first stage is designed to do up to 12 launches and landings! (As I have read - they do 3 at present).
No other system can get even close to his launch costs either on a single launch,less so on 3 re-uses and certainly not above that!!!
I wish Paul the very best and I hope he can find a large rocket to sling underneath (ie what it was designed to do).Not these silly fireworks.That make some sense out of this project.

BTW of course Sir Richard Branston picked up on Paul's original work for the Ansar prise and upscale It for passengers.Frankly (and sadly) I think Richard is and will continue to loose his shirt (he can afford a few) on the project. (He - I note is now also offering small satellite launches).
Mr Amazon has also perfected the return to launchpad system on his new shepherd launch vehicle.This will be the winner for commercial day trips IMHO.-why go to 100,000 feet in a plane when you can go in a ROCKET! - AND then parachute down like real astronauts!!