Comments
alphagusta t1_j4h34fc wrote
It had a good answer to start off with
The initial development of it was to airlaunch a variant of the now worlds leading current launch vehicle Falcon 9
SpaceX then decided it would focus purely on the logistical needs of its ground launched Falcon 9 as the 2 versions were quickly becoming vastly more different in design to make it feasible
Stratolaunch then had other rocket concepts that it could take but none of them stuck.
It's a victim of competition, its biggest rival is Virign Orbit with its much more feasibly converted 747 instead of a brand new aircraft
7ECA t1_j4hb8y4 wrote
Yep it's the famous 'law of the excluded middle'. The B747 is almost as capable and infinitely cheaper because they're ubiquitous. SpaceX has the ability to lift payloads that are financially interesting. This thing was in between the two and was knowable from the start.
I think Paul Allen was a great man but this was not his greatest moment
Drak_is_Right t1_j4hi2pi wrote
I think he might have paid for his own launch vehicle development, but he died so they scrapped that?
7ECA t1_j4htsr5 wrote
I believe that the people managing his estate sold off the aircraft and the program
todd10k t1_j4iezct wrote
But wouldn't this vehicle also be capable of lifting much heavier payloads to the stratosphere than a simple 747?
Also, Lets see his card.
DRF19 t1_j4hhbdm wrote
Just randomly saw the Virgin Orbit 747 land and taxi at Fort Lauderdale airport the other day
jamesbideaux t1_j4hwg02 wrote
one of the main issue is that air launching requires a lot of the rocket you are launching to be protection from the different stresses (in terms of direction) of flight.
It might turn out that we can do better but currently airlaunched rockets are inferior to ground launched rockets.
Drachefly t1_j4gzc25 wrote
Seems to me like the question is, "How can we get something up to enough speed and altitude that it can be picked up by a rotavator?"
Soytaco t1_j4inyhw wrote
Lol the only reason I came to the comments is to find out why this thing exists. Glad to see I'm not the only one.
wj9eh t1_j4ha4je wrote
"Largest" is a bit of a vague term. Aircraft are usually measured by their maximum takeoff weight and, from what I can find, this one's is 590,000 kg compared to the 225's 640,000 kg. They mean longest wingspan.
No denigration of the subject aircraft is present in this comment.
MagicPeacockSpider t1_j4hj2lm wrote
So according to that article, it's currently the largest until Russia is forced to pay to restore the 225.
green_meklar t1_j4hmhmr wrote
Somehow I doubt Russia is going to be able to afford to pay for restoration of much of anything.
MagicPeacockSpider t1_j4hwd9p wrote
Russia without the current regime would be much, much richer.
Oligarchs get their money from somewhere.
I think Germany finished paying reparation debts in 2010.
Russia could take the same amount of time or much, much, less to pay for rebuilding Ukraine.
It all depends who is in charge and where Russia's money goes.
Severe-Archer-1673 t1_j4henwv wrote
I could be wrong, but I’ve always understood that they measure aircraft size, in terms of wingspan. I’ve never heard of takeoff weight being used as a ranking measure, in terms of size.
Zakluor t1_j4hidss wrote
You're both right. Take-off weight is an important measure since cargo (passengers count in this context) is often measured that way.
Wingspan and, to a lesser degree, length, of the aircraft are often considered, too. Sometimes when they say 'largest' they talk about the width or diameter of the fuselage, as well, but that's usually in relation to an aircraft designed specifically to carry certain things. The Super Guppy and other cargo aircraft would fall into this category.
It really is context-dependent.
wj9eh t1_j4hkktn wrote
Well as an aviation professional I can tell you that more or less everything is based on MTOW. If you're more interested in wingspan, that's of course absolutely fine. The only time that tends to come into play day-to-day is whether a plane can fit down a certain taxiway or a certain parking position or not.
wooltab t1_j4ivsph wrote
Is the word "large" used in aviation to refer to takeoff weight?
wj9eh t1_j4jwoaq wrote
Yes. A "large aircraft" for example is, in the regulations, anything over 5,700 kg MTOW. Any time anyone refers to size, it would be MTOW that one would think they're referring to. Otherwise we'd say "wingspan" or "length".
Severe-Archer-1673 t1_j65mdel wrote
Using this logic, the space shuttle would be the largest aircraft, would it not? I get it, though, wingspan and takeoff weight are arbitrary methods of gauging an aircraft’s largeness.
I was a crew chief on C-5s, so I’m obviously biased toward wingspan. They’re all big, and it’s a small miracle they can fly in the air at all.
wj9eh t1_j666xla wrote
Well I can speak for commercial aviation, where takeoff weight does have a few non-arbitrary consequences such as what sort of approaches and turns you can make and how much wake you produce. Also, wingspan has already reached its maximum in terms of what can fit in an airport, so now it's just about how heavy planes can get within that limit. But yes, it's as arbitrary as anything.
The space shuttle would be biggest but I'd argue it took off with a rocket, which isn't lifting off using the air but rather in spite of it. Then on the way down, it could only glide and not support itself straight and level. Again, as arbitrary as you like. It's all a miracle they can fly!
ChronoFish t1_j4l1n15 wrote
Well for years the worlds largest airplane (as it was popularly known) was the spruce goose .... Measured by wingspan.
It held the title till the stratolauncher.
lughnasadh OP t1_j4gei3t wrote
Submission Statement
Stratolaunch has been around for a while. Way back in 2011, they were a contender with SpaceX to launch the earliest iterations of the Falcon rockets. While this aircraft was initially developed to launch rockets into space. Presumably, that hasn't worked out, but they see another opportunity - hypersonic research. China seems to have taken a lead in that, which must be funneling US DoD money in that direction.
I wonder will anyone ever crack the nut that is a successful horizontal space launch from aircraft? Virgin Galactic tried in recent weeks and failed. Using this approach for small payloads of 500 kg or so seems most likely to succeed. Among the many problems this approach has, is that building rockets (that are mainly fuel containers for their small payloads) that can take both horizontal and vertical stresses is hard.
Whybecauseoh t1_j4h5a9h wrote
Launches from aircraft to orbit have been going on for years actually.
https://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/launch/L-1011-pegasus.html
Isord t1_j4j2k3y wrote
Technically anti-satellite missiles are also launched from aircraft into orbit.
Fun_Designer7898 t1_j4i8155 wrote
The statement about hypersonics might be misleading
China uses hypersonic boost glide vehicles, basically a rocket that propels to hypersonic speeds, nothing new, hypersonic speeds have been achieved in the 40's already when looking at rockets reaching orbit
The US has two working prototypes for a hypersonic cruise missile, which are much much more sophisticated because it uses air breathing engines to propel the missile
lughnasadh OP t1_j4i9j7u wrote
>>basically a rocket that propels to hypersonic speeds, nothing new
I'm not an expert on any of this, but many US military figures have commented the Chinese craft exceeds US capabilities.
Also, it can stay in orbit in space with nuclear weapons for prolonged periods of time, before re-entering Earth at hypersonic speeds - so this isn't something that anyone has been able to do before.
Fun_Designer7898 t1_j4i9xu1 wrote
The X-37 is literally able to stay in orbit for a very long time, with the ability to carry nukes. It was first introduced in 2010, so it's not something never done before lile you said
lughnasadh OP t1_j4iaadu wrote
>>The X-37
Yes, but it glides in to land at a leisurely pace, and would be easy to shoot down.
The danger with craft at hypersonic speeds is that they are almost impossible to shoot down or defend against.
Fun_Designer7898 t1_j4iava8 wrote
What? You know that it can drop nukes if it needs to, there is no need to re arm them because those are nuked we are talking about
Also, if china uses a missile, it needs to produce a new one, the US could drop the load AND make it land, reload and take off again
Hypersonic missiles can be intercepted, it will get easier with laser weapons
VincentGrinn t1_j4i7s1e wrote
never knew the vehicle itself had the name 'roc'
not sure how big rocs in mythology were, but the largest rocs in dnd have a wingspan of 270ft compared to the stratolaunches 385. rather fitting name i think
xXSpaceturdXx t1_j4h5n61 wrote
At first I was thinking maybe this would be a replacement for the big Ukrainian plane AN225 that was blown up but no. They should build one of those next.
VitaminPb t1_j4i5dh3 wrote
I like little try at a bitch slap at Virgin for failing their first flight and pretending they are dead because of it. So stupid.
TomKattWasHere t1_j4kx6hv wrote
how much water could that bad boi carry? cali wild fire season is gonna be lit this year-bet.
FuturologyBot t1_j4gj8d9 wrote
The following submission statement was provided by /u/lughnasadh:
Submission Statement
Stratolaunch has been around for a while. Way back in 2011, they were a contender with SpaceX to launch the earliest iterations of the Falcon rockets. While this aircraft was initially developed to launch rockets into space. Presumably, that hasn't worked out, but they see another opportunity - hypersonic research. China seems to have taken a lead in that, which must be funneling US DoD money in that direction.
I wonder will anyone ever crack the nut that is a successful horizontal space launch from aircraft? Virgin Galactic tried in recent weeks and failed. Using this approach for small payloads of 500 kg or so seems most likely to succeed. Among the many problems this approach has, is that building rockets (that are mainly fuel containers for their small payloads) that can take both horizontal and vertical stresses is hard.
Please reply to OP's comment here: https://old.reddit.com/r/Futurology/comments/10cmgjj/the_stratolaunch_roc_the_largest_aircraft_ever/j4gei3t/
[deleted] t1_j4hhouh wrote
[removed]
[deleted] t1_j4hlgsx wrote
[deleted]
green_meklar t1_j4hmefa wrote
Are they still flying this thing? I though the Stratolaunch concept was scrapped.
Still a really impressive airplane either way.
[deleted] t1_j4hytme wrote
[removed]
[deleted] t1_j4hzrg1 wrote
[removed]
[deleted] t1_j4i5v8m wrote
[removed]
[deleted] t1_j4i8rk3 wrote
[removed]
[deleted] t1_j4ifl6c wrote
[removed]
7ECA t1_j4gulpw wrote
A flying answer in search of a question