Brand-New Stratolaunch, the Biggest Plane in the World, Could Replace the Space Shuttle

Howard Hughes would be happy, I think.

Howard Hughes would be happy, I think.

one complain about this article... no metric units?! c'mon put some SI... please ^^

---
bored? lets go mine the stars... ^^

If anybody can do this certainly Burt Rutan is at the top of the list of innovative engineers with the ability to pull this off. Add Paul Allen and Elon Musk with their dollars and I'd say this is a pretty sure bet.

Popsci had an article about how the USDD was looking to consider this concept as an option for operationally efficient launch operations of space assets through mobile aerial launch platforms (i.e. airplanes). If these guys succeed they might be on the line for some serious Defense contracts. More profit for the powers that be at Scaled Composites, Space-X, and Stratolaunch Systems.

The real question is the cost per launch. Usually things of grandiose conception cost a lot of money to operate. Check out the Space Shuttle. This thing definitely looks like it could increase the traffic flow of orbital operations, but the cost would definitely make or break these companies. At least these are profitable ventures not bound by legislative squabbles over the parameters of a law governing what they are to do in an ambiguous way, or the insufficient tax funds from people who can barely afford it and others who want to cop out of giving money to the government in the first place. It's about time spaceflight go to private industry to that effect. The bigger projects will, however, remain the works of national governments, but the big projects eventually become common place. In our children's or grandchildren's lifetimes they may witness the first marketable private space vehicle. Why have flying cars when you can just fly an airplane? Why become an astronaut if you can own your own spacecraft? Think about.

It's funny that Michael Griffin, who ardently opposed the fledgeling private space industry, is now a privateer himself. I guess all it takes is a little money to change someone's mind (MAYBE HE'LL VOTE FOR OBAMA IN 2012!). And by the way, this goes to show that NASA is wasting billions on a rocket that will be obsolete technology BEFORE IT EVEN GETS OFF THE GROUND!

NASA JUST NEEDS TO COMPLETELY GET OUT OF THE WAY AND ALLOW PRIVATE SPACE TO RUN AWAY WITH THE SPACE LAUNCH BUSINESS.

@pheonix1012,

Nothing from the private industry will EVER! be as expensive as the space shuttle. And if you ask me, re-usability is key. This alone will make it successful.

it somehow seems more complicated than say an atlas V, yet at the same time so much simpler...

nice idea , but its gotta cost a ton to get throught he thick lower atmosphere.

Since a space elevator is unlikely atm, how about a tower as tall as we can make it economically that can haul a plane like this up real far and launch it

The way i see it is a four towers with a big launchpad connecting them. perhaps wires leading to the ground at a angle for stability at the top, or one of those really big pendulum like things.

Planes would take off and land there perhaps never come down on the ground, just the cargo would come up and down.

To save even more fuel they could create the worlds largest nuclear powered airplane catapult, instead of pointing horizontally it would be vertical.

Im sure ther`ed be lots of fuel saved and you could use the tower for lots of things cell towers,meterlogical stations radio and such.

I'll give them from free advice.

A biplane would be much better for this. The only point of this is to raise weight to high levels. They could save a lot on the structure with two superimposed main wings.

For every hundred feet above sea level the amount of fuel it takes to exceed escape velocity is greatly reduced. A winged craft uses energy but not to lift in a vertical manner.

They might still look at launching from mountain tops using terrestrial energy for part of the launch process.

2004... It's almost 2012 and what's the hold up? Same could be said with my flying car, Dr. Moller.

What's the problem making the future happen?

Yes it looks like a copy of the spruce goose flying boat.

It's no Spruce Goose - and for the metric folks the wingspan is a full 115 meters, or 385 feet. A 747-400 is about 211 feet.

There is a 5-15 percent advantage launching from above most of the stmosphere which lets them use a shorter, lighter 4-5 engine SpaceX Falcon variant. The air-launch also lets them exactly match the orbital inclination desired, which saves both fuel and the time it would take to match, for example, of the ISS's orbit. Not to mention being able to fly above weather issues and the carrier being an immediately reusable 'zeroeth' stage that could do several launches a week (or day!)

There is also that this is not just a launcher, it's also a long range heavy lift cargo carrier. This could deliver wide format (8-10 meter) rocket stages or other wide cargo from factories to locations that now have to be shipped by barge or ship, but much faster.

What really strikes me is how wide that space is between fuselage pods. Much wider than is needed even for shipping a 10 meter rocket stage. Almost as if it's capable of carrying a very large orbital spaceplane, something akin to a subscale Venture Star which has enough fuel to get to orbit in large, internal tanks. Just saying...

DocM

Could also use this baby as a bomber. Replace the capsule with a bomb and that's one mother of a hole you could make in that Iranian bunker.

This design is almost exactly what was used in the 1970s TV program UFO for their moon-base shuttles.

Space planes is our best way to move to space.

Go go George Jetson!

so are they going to use Rolls Royce ,Prat and Whitney,
or GE engines on it?

Looks like a twin hulled Spruce Goose with a rocket in the middle!

I think this is awesome, but also that it will reduce the cost of launching things into space significantly, down from the price of a rocket to the price of essentially, an airplane ride. Nasa should allow these private companies to excel, and focus themselves more on instrumentation like rovers, and probes.

How about using in flight tankers to fuel the rocket at cruising altitude reducing takeoff weight of the rocket plus mother ship? Perhaps for safety two or more tankers one or more carrying Liquid Hydrogen and the second or more carrying Liquid Oxygen. Indeed this is complex compared to jet fuel tankers in use for 50 plus years. Maybe using another fuel combo such as jet fuel and LOX? And just using tankers for the jet fuel.

@DickOvens

"Maybe using another fuel combo such as jet fuel and LOX?"

The SpaceX Falcon's Merlin 1D engines already use RP-1, a rocket grade kerosene that is very much like the JP-1 used in jets.

That said - SpaceX is supposed to announce a new staged combustion engine soon, and there is speculation that it may run on liquid methane or a blend of methane with another fuel. If so this would deliver a high specific impulse (an efficiency index) which would be ideal for this application.

DocM