This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

So I have already seen pictures of the new carrier aircraft but I am not the best at getting the pictures on here and with the proper information coud someone get them up if they know how to do this decently? MathewDill ( talk) 21:27, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

I agree. The article definitely needs a photo. That should be pretty easy, since photos have appeared in many media sites, there ought to be a "fair use" rationale for using a single photo on the main article page. Like you, I am not too facile with the Wikipedia photos and images rulz, so I usually leave it for the experts. I will add a {{ Image requested}} tag, which might get us some help from wikiphoto-savvy editors. Also, you might want to ask for some help from User:Huntster—s/he is a wiki-photo expert who has previously edited quite a few spaceflight-related articles. Cheers. N2e ( talk) 18:16, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Looks like we should try to get a newer picture of comparitive lengths. The current picture showing related aircraft sizes is no longer accurate since it was created using the original purpose-built fuselage design instead of the currently chosen twin B747 fuselage design. No one can be completely sure what the final airframe will look like but a very good indication that the twin B747 will be the end choice is that both B747 airframes have been purchased, moved to the assembly area, stripped, and modifications have begun to mate them to the proposed wing set already. A quick look at the comparison chart shows the length of the 747 in the shado is much longer than the original concept fuselages indicated in the comparison lineart. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.3.37.78 ( talk) 21:18, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

• I deleted the incipient "Specifications" section as the more detailed vehicle specs belong in the vehicle articles; a company does not have specifications. Of course, the major high-level specs (e.g., largest aircraft with 385 foot wingspan, total a/c weight, payload mass to orbit, etc.,) can go in the summary descriptions of the aircraft and launch vehicle here. Cheers. N2e ( talk) 00:09, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Brought specs back

I added it back, as I think we should vote on it , as from a user inter face ease of info one needs to look at the total package aka air-plane + rocket = the launch system. I think we need to vote on it before we kill specs IMHO. I do not want a wiki war, but I think it make sense to have the specs.

• +1 keep specs .

Wilee ( talk) 00:21, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Great, no problem bringing them back temporarily so we can discuss on the Talk page, per WP:BRD. I'll leave them in the article as long as each spec has a reliable source per WP:V during the time it takes us to develop a consensus on the matter.

My position is that "Specifications" don't belong in a Wikipedia company article. They would, of course, be appropriate for a Wikipedia article on the Stratolaunch carrier aircraft, or one on the Stratolaunch launch vehicle. Cheers. N2e ( talk) 01:57, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

I agree here, specifications belong in the article about the aircraft, not in the article about the company. Ryan  Vesey  Review me! 02:03, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

I am a bit devided on it. I belive that it would make since for them to be on the vehicle page instead of the company page. Though at the same time there is little detail about all the componants of the ships as of yet and if you look over the SpaceX page you see a large section on Space vehicles section on there and an underdevelopment section as well that takes up the majority of the companies page. These sections cover many aspects of the ships along with their developmental progress. If the idea of not including information on the vehicles applies here should it apply there.

My point is, is that there is limited information about this ship as it stands today but it will develope. May I suggest making it a space vehicles or Under development section and we can maybe rewrite it so it doesn't seem like a list. As such I will put my vote down for now as Keep MathewDill ( talk) 00:13, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

DELETE Specifications should go with the launcher, not the company article.-- Abebenjoe ( talk) 01:16, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Abebenjoe it seems to me you jumped the gun while the topic was being discussed. Again I understand your angle on it and I for the most part agree I still think it could have been reworked and put in with wording on the craft itself. A breif summory of what Stratolaunch Systems is working on is appropriate for the company article and the subject being that of the worlds largest aircraft is important to the company article. The best way to explain how massive it is, is with details of the craft is wing spand and the fact that it will have 6 747 engines are of note to the company. I suggest reinstating it until a full concencus is formed. MathewDill ( talk) 16:49, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

wich niow I see is in there under carrier section of it so I stand corrected and retract my complain of it not being in there anymore. MathewDill ( talk) 16:52, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

-- Beaucouplusneutre ( talk) 10:31, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

the article lacks the Criticism section

• it’s only an (huge) “fundraising machine” (government funds, of course).
• the development of this monster may need 8-10 years and $2+ billion.
• and, when it will be ready, it could carry half the payload of a Falcon-9 at twice the price.
• the advantage to launch a rocket from 30,000 ft. of altitude at subsonic speed is MINIMAL (around 1%).
• so, it’s only another very expensive and stupid idea, a sort of “Space Spruce Goose” :)
• the full project can’t born without the development of a Falcon-5/6 from SpaceX that costs further money, you must add to this program, and, when SpaceX will build this resized rocket, it will NOT NEED the Allen’s Spruce Goose to carry the SAME payload to the SAME orbit from a launch pad (with just an 1% loss) and a (pure theorical) 5-10% reduction of launch costs (that I do NOT believe will happen) is simply ridiculous, since, an easier and cheaper access to Space, needs costs cuts in the range of 90-95%.
• this launcher can’t carry a Dragon to LEO (as shown in the video) since its max payload is half than the Dragon mass.
• and, do they have the same army of engineers of Boeing or Airbus to develop an airplane bigger than 747 and A380?
• this launcher can’t carry a Dragon to LEO (as shown in the video) since its max payload is half than the Dragon mass and… do they have the same army of engineers of Boeing or Airbus to develop an airplane bigger than 747 and A380?
• assuming that it will be really built (but I don’t believe it will happen) the only advantage will be an 1% increase of the payload launched with a Falcon-5/6 from a launch pad… as said, it’s only an incredibly stupid idea! :) :) :)
• develop the (much smaller) A380 has costed over $15 billion, so, the $200M invested by Paul Allen will be enough to develop only the Stratolaunch’s landing gears and wheels…
• a very simple question:
• how to carry to LEO the SAME (or more) payload of an air-launched (5-Merlin) Falcon-5, saving time and money???
• with a very simple answer:
• just launch it with a (6-Merlin) Falcon-6, without burn money and lose years to develop and build the Allen’s mothership!!!
• I don’t know if SpaceX may ever develop a Falcon-5 or a Falcon-6, but, surely, launch a payload with a Falcon-6, will be much simple, cheap and rational than launch the SAME payload with an air-launched Falcon-5
• — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.10.108.252 ( talk) 16:26, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

[Fixed markup for OP] 64.157.241.246 ( talk) 16:38, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

The above unsigned criticism is factually incorrect about the advantages of air launch. I'm speaking as a retired Boeing engineer who has worked on air-launch rocket concepts. That's not a citation, but I will put the data here and others can verify it for themselves. A rocket in the vacuum of space with no planets nearby can reach what is called an 'ideal velocity'. A real rocket starting from the ground reaches less than this velocity because of what we term "losses". The first of these is gravity loss. A rocket attempting to climb vertically is opposed by gravity, and so gets one gee less acceleration than the engines would produce away from a planet. Later in the flight when the rocket is more horizontal, gravity is perpendicular to thrust, so does not produce a loss. Air launch trajectories spend more of their time thrusting near horizontal, so see much less gee-loss. Next is pressure loss. Rocket engines produce thrust by the pressure difference between inside and outside the engine. At sea level, atmosphere pressure reduces this difference. That is why you see rocket engine specs quote thrust as either sea-level, vacuum, or both - they are different. With air launch, the engines are closer to vacuum for more of the flight, and so run at higher thrust for the same fuel. Third is drag, which of course is reduced if you start above 70% of the atmosphere. Air-launch in addition to cutting these losses, gives you the added energy of the starting velocity and altitude. The altitude is actually more important.

The last thing to consider is payload is not linear in fuel use. If the Falcon rocket from the ground has a payload fraction of 3.5%, then cutting the fuel required by 3.5% by a more efficient flight will double the payload to 7%. Doubling the payload relative to ground launch of the same rocket is about the improvement I saw on the studies I worked on, and other studies that I am aware of. As additional evidence this is a sound method, note that Burt Rutan and Scaled Composites, Inc. use the same concept on their SpaceShip One vehicle (just smaller). Rutan is not noted for doing bad design. Danielravennest ( talk) 21:19, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Here is a reference paper on air launch concepts: A Study of Air Launch Methods for RLVs — Preceding unsigned comment added by Danielravennest ( talk • contribs) 19:44, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

The above is a dead link. Live appears to be: mae.engr.ucdavis.edu/faculty/sarigul/aiaa2001-4619.pdf 64.157.241.246 ( talk) 16:38, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

Now aside from your personal issues with the system here that lack any facts to back it up other then what you seem to be assuming is there any criticism that we can find to make this section. I have yet to see anything of this sort that is note worthy and would suggest a need for this section as of yet. Please cite some sources for any of these claims. MathewDill ( talk) 17:27, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

The criticism above doesn't seem appropriate to this page: criticism here should be about this specific implementation of the air-launch-to-orbit concept. There is already a place for more generic criticism of air-launch-to-orbit, at Air launch to orbit#Disadvantages.

I do agree that it'd be nice to explain why moving the launch point up 10km and moving sideways at 85m/s is useful when the payloads need to be >160km up and moving at ~7500m/s. It is unintuitive, so I feel needs some brief explanation, perhaps with a link to the main page on the topic but again, at Air launch to orbit#Advantages. Some of the points in Danielravennest's post above seem like they'd make for great improvements in that section, though they introduce further unintuitive concepts, such as the idea that moving horizontally magically makes gravity turn off. Naively, I'd imagine that the fact that the rocket still needs to not fall is why they only fly "almost horizontally". But the linked PDF backs Daniel up: "Flying a trajectory that zeros out the flight path angle (gamma) between the vehicle velocity vector and the local horizontal as soon as possible minimizes gravity loss." So, I guess you can turn off gravity. Who knew? 64.157.241.246 ( talk) 16:38, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

There are a number of details, about the program as well as the technical details of both the carrier aircraft, the air-launched rocket, and the mating integration system that are announced in the recent "15th Annual FAA Commercial Space Transportation Conference", held 15 - 16 February 2012, in Washington, DC. A video of the talk is available at the AIAA site. Presenter is Jim Halsell, the Director of technical integration for Stratolaunch. AIAA site video of Jim Halsell.

• All contracts have been awarded and funds are flowing.
• Key schedule milestones chart appears at approx. 8:00 in the video.
• Concept of operations chart (c. 9:00)
• Kennedy Space Center is the nominal/initial launch center for design purposes; system can obviously move and launch worldwide as requirements dictate.
• Carrier aircraft:
  • Aircraft dimensions and some wing specs given at 9:40.
  • Start wing box and wing spar construction summer of 2012, with test articles completed before that. (c. 10:40)
  • Analysis includes 3D-analysis, CFD, and some wind tunnel testing (c. 10:40)
• MIS (Mating and Integration System) described, provides the utilities and services that would normally be porvided by a ground launch pad. Graphic shows a high-level view on the five interfaces between the carrier aircraft and the air-launched rocket: mechanical, electrical, thermal, fluids and gasses (c. 12:00).
• Air-launched rocket:
  • Some reference to "Falcon 5." Are we back to five engines (contra the latest source quoted in the article that says Stratolaunch had settled on a 4-engine design? Someone will have to listen to this again.
• Organizational roles: including FAA AST and AVW interfaces, launch licensing, protection of the public, etc.
• Paul Allen goals: furthering mankind's progress in space programs, especially in US launch capability, but also of course wants to make a return on the investment.
• 100% privately funded
• Cost and price? As a private company, they do not plan to announce either publicly until much later.
• Can run an ops tempo of one air-launch every three days if the demand were to be that high? Foresee parallel launch processing if necessary.
• The carrier aircraft design has already moved away, in some ways, from the conceptual design they showed in December 2011. System tradeoffs have already led them to some changes. Optimizing for take-off, as well as launch altitude launch performance, at some tradeoff of cruise range, etc.

Here is a link to an article on RLV and Space Transport News with a brief description and a link to the conference video. Cheers. N2e ( talk) 20:13, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

And here is a news article on the same event as documented in the video of the talk above: Stratolaunch lays the groundwork while refining its aircraft design, NewSpace Journal, 24 Feb 2012.

• You folks might want to clean up your guesses since late last year spacex announced they would not be supporting stratolaunch and ula signed on to create a new vehicle for stratolaunch. With these changes there will not be a falcon anything under the big new bird at all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.2.94.129 ( talk) 20:23, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Those were not any wiki-editor's "guesses", that was merely a summary of a Talk by a Stratolaunch official in early 2012, just a couple of months after the Stratolaunch announcement, and still quite early in the time frame where SpaceX was the announced vendor for development of the rocket. When SpaceX did terminate the relationship with Stratolaunch, nearly a year later, that was reflected in the Wikipedia article, with sources, almost immediately. So the article should be quite straight on this. Cheers. N2e ( talk) 05:07, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

The design of the transport system resembles that mooted by Virgin Galactic in 2007 for SS4 and WKderivative. [1] I wonder if any of them knew of this back then? 70.24.251.224 ( talk) 07:27, 17 March 2012 (UTC)