385 Feet of Crazy: The Most Audacious Flying Machine(wired.com)
wired.com
385 Feet of Crazy: The Most Audacious Flying Machine
https://www.wired.com/story/stratolaunch-airplane-burt-rutan-paul-allen/
58 comments
I wonder if there might be unique military applications. I’m thinking recon satellites launched on short notice to be able to observe a target that’s trying to hide. Launch site flexibility also means you can launch from a location that would let you recover the payload after only one orbit, like the Shuttle could do.
Yeah, that's exactly the sort of thing that comes to mind and what might make the scheme work: not merely trying to serve an existing market but create an entirely new capability that can then command sufficient margins. Could the military have reusable birds on standby and then just be able to launch them for some specific conflict aiming for a quick lifetime at much lower altitude and with a path and period that wouldn't be known to adversaries? I haven't crunched the math, but in principle it seems like they could launch something stratospheric even, not high enough for a long term stable orbit but in turn could have higher mass and useful new intel gathering potential.
Of course economics still matters here even for the military, it still will be weighed against conventional satellites and spy planes and so on. But a sales pitch of:
>"We can pick up your bird from anywhere with enough runway, fly it to somewhere it can be launched at any time with minimal to zero worries about weather, other air traffic, or bothering (or even being visible to) populated areas, and hit any azimuth (no population overflight concerns either)"
seems like it might be worth something at least. It's certainly somewhat different beyond cost at least, even if it doesn't matter to most. The AF has their own robotic spaceplane project after all, seems like there is at least some interest in this kind of area?
Of course economics still matters here even for the military, it still will be weighed against conventional satellites and spy planes and so on. But a sales pitch of:
>"We can pick up your bird from anywhere with enough runway, fly it to somewhere it can be launched at any time with minimal to zero worries about weather, other air traffic, or bothering (or even being visible to) populated areas, and hit any azimuth (no population overflight concerns either)"
seems like it might be worth something at least. It's certainly somewhat different beyond cost at least, even if it doesn't matter to most. The AF has their own robotic spaceplane project after all, seems like there is at least some interest in this kind of area?
From a quick google, a 200km orbit lasts roughly a day and it drops to zero very quickly after that, so I don’t think you could save too much by launching lower, but it might be worthwhile.
Dale Brown [1] wrote about this in his series of military techno-thriller novels, I think somewhere around Wings of Fire, written in 2002. Basically the idea is to have easy to launch constellations of micro-sats that could be launched to LEO to cover a specific area for a few days or weeks.
If this does come to fruit in real life, it wouldn't be the first time that ideas from his books have become reality 10-20 years later.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dale_Brown
If this does come to fruit in real life, it wouldn't be the first time that ideas from his books have become reality 10-20 years later.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dale_Brown
In prior speculation on space-related forums, the only non-military application that seemed likely was space tourism. (The extra flexibility you get on launch site and timing could enable unusually quick rendezvous with a space station already in orbit -- which also has kind of obvious benefits to a hostile military.)
Not an easy thing to do. Getting a sat stabilized and orientated sufficiently to take good photos takes time. It would certainly be several days before such a small sat would be useful, giving them more than enough time to hide.
Is that a fundamental limit, or just how they’re currently built because they don’t need to do anything better?
I don’t know a whole lot about spy satellites, but the existence of things like spy planes and accurate ICBMs suggests the latter.
I don’t know a whole lot about spy satellites, but the existence of things like spy planes and accurate ICBMs suggests the latter.
For small sats in low orbit it can be a very big deal. Before you can start snapping pictures accurately you need to confirm the actual orbit. You let the thing whip by a couple times to confirm its speed and altitude. Then it will likely be spinning a little. You need to wait for the aerodynamic forces to smooth that out.
Related: The New Yorker just a few weeks ago published a great profile[0] of the Virgin Galactic pilots, including a lot of detail about Burt Rutan, Scaled Composites, and WhiteKnightTwo.
[0] https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2018/08/20/virgin-galacti...
[0] https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2018/08/20/virgin-galacti...
I don't understand the math of this sort of launch vehicle. Any rocket launched at a high altitude still needs to accelerate up to orbital velocity, which is orders of magnitude more energy than is saved by starting out moving at a sub-sonic speed and a high altitude.
The layers of complexity here can't be worth it economically. Is this a solution in search of a problem?
The layers of complexity here can't be worth it economically. Is this a solution in search of a problem?
Air launch (to orbit)[1] has been a thing for a good while now. As others have stated, fuel savings are enormous; jet engines have orders of magnitude higher efficiency than rocket engines when taking fuel tankage into account. Air resistance is barely an issue, and same for the gravity drag. But most importantly, launch mass is greatly reduced in part thanks to not having to carry oxidizer for the first stage. Another factor, rocket's first stage must have powerful, thus heavy, engines with enough thrust to both counter gravity and impair acceleration; an orbital insertion stage can do with much lower TWR, thus again mass savings for air launch.
Point in case, note the size of the Pegasus orbital rocket [2]. Or the orbital anti-satellite missile, sized like a typical cruise missile, all thanks to air launch [3] from a typical fighter jet.
Now that SpaceX is able to recover the first stages from some launches, the cost of first stage is a bit less of a factor, but still there are other considerations, like ability to launch from any decent runway vs having to maintain a dedicated facility, unusable for any other commercial purposes, far away from humans due to incredible amount of noise rocket engines create.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_launch_to_orbit
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pegasus_(rocket)
[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ASM-135_ASAT
Point in case, note the size of the Pegasus orbital rocket [2]. Or the orbital anti-satellite missile, sized like a typical cruise missile, all thanks to air launch [3] from a typical fighter jet.
Now that SpaceX is able to recover the first stages from some launches, the cost of first stage is a bit less of a factor, but still there are other considerations, like ability to launch from any decent runway vs having to maintain a dedicated facility, unusable for any other commercial purposes, far away from humans due to incredible amount of noise rocket engines create.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_launch_to_orbit
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pegasus_(rocket)
[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ASM-135_ASAT
As you can tell from air launch not dominating the market, there are minuses to it, too. Pegasus has extra mass because it's got aerodynamic surfaces that traditional rockets don't need. And it takes a lot of gear at the remote airstrip to support the launch.
https://spaceflightnow.com/2018/06/08/airplane-with-pegasus-...
https://spaceflightnow.com/2018/06/08/airplane-with-pegasus-...
The rocket equation is nasty. Adding a bit more energy requires exponentially more effort. This is why orbital rockets are staged: past a certain point, you hit diminishing returns with making a single stage bigger and bigger, and it works out better to stack it on top of another stage that does the extra work.
Think of the airplane part of this as an efficient, highly reusable first stage with poor performance.
Think of the airplane part of this as an efficient, highly reusable first stage with poor performance.
The converse of this is that the first bit of velocity you save pays off handsomely. Every multiple of the exhaust velocity that you save nets you a factor of e savings in mass ratio. Additionally, getting out of the soup of the lower atmosphere improves the average efficiency of your engine. Again, this is a bigger deal, relatively speaking, when you’re saving the first bit of velocity off the top, as you’re multiplying on a larger launch vehicle.
Maybe the first 1/2 stage.
Air pressure. Google "ISP". Rockets are more efficient at lower air pressures, preferably vacuum. But a rocket (really just the bell/nozzle bit where the fire comes out) must still be designed to operate in a particular air pressure. The problem with the first stage of every rocket is that is must travel between sea level a near-vacuum at high altitude. So you cannot ever reach proper efficiencies. By launching at altitude they can optimize for vacuum operation without worry about sea level performance. We are talking about roughly 10~% margins here, but rocket companies can spend billions on 1-2% improvements.
Also, by launching from an aircraft over an ocean one can avoid many of the ground realities of rocket operations. Land-based sites much deal with shipping notices and noise issues. Stratospheric can fire these things in different directions, to different orbits, without worry. They might also be able to launch multiple rockets on a single flight, a totally new service that might hit an unexplored market.
Lastly, politics. Stratolaunch could travel the world to launch rockets from basically any big airport. So if the Saudis want to launch something without the hassle of US/Russian security checks, they can have Stratospheric show up to handle the launch locally. There are probably enough countries wanting to launch something locally for prestige alone.
Or... someone just wants to have the biggest airplane in the world (paging Dr. Freud) and this is the way to make that happen.
Also, by launching from an aircraft over an ocean one can avoid many of the ground realities of rocket operations. Land-based sites much deal with shipping notices and noise issues. Stratospheric can fire these things in different directions, to different orbits, without worry. They might also be able to launch multiple rockets on a single flight, a totally new service that might hit an unexplored market.
Lastly, politics. Stratolaunch could travel the world to launch rockets from basically any big airport. So if the Saudis want to launch something without the hassle of US/Russian security checks, they can have Stratospheric show up to handle the launch locally. There are probably enough countries wanting to launch something locally for prestige alone.
Or... someone just wants to have the biggest airplane in the world (paging Dr. Freud) and this is the way to make that happen.
> . So if the Saudis want to launch something without the hassle of US/Russian security checks, they can have Stratospheric show up to handle the launch locally.
No, because stratolaunch as a US company is subject to ITAR, and its rockets will be built with ITAR restricted tech.
No, because stratolaunch as a US company is subject to ITAR, and its rockets will be built with ITAR restricted tech.
SA is a regular importer/exporter of ITAR stuff, including weaponry. I'm sure they would have no problems getting Stratolaunch to show up for a few launches. But getting a Saudi sat, a defense-related sat, onto a US rocket would take years, perhaps a decade.
A few points, from a mostly-laymen point of view.
When you watch a SpaceX launch they actually have to really dial down their acceleration to get through Max-Q, the highest dynamic pressure, due to air resistance. Air resistance is a function of speed SQUARED and the density of air. By starting the rocket that much higher, I believe they are essentially removing that inefficiency- by the time they're moving fast enough for it to matter, there isn't enough air for it to matter.
There's also the whole tyranny of rocketry equation. The first foot of elevation gained is the hardest and the first mile per hour of speed is the hardest. Starting even a little bit higher and faster is a big win over taking off from sea level.
And as others have said, they've got incredible flexibility here. Whatever orbit you want to be in, the launch will take place in that orbit. A lot of traditional rocket launches have 'instantaneous' launch windows where missing by 1 second is a no-go because the ground is only in the right spot at one moment.
Most important of all: let them try! If this whole thing is a bust, it's private enterprise and you and I lose nothing over it while getting to see an enormous jet. And if it does work, we all win from the increase in availability of satellites and access to space.
When you watch a SpaceX launch they actually have to really dial down their acceleration to get through Max-Q, the highest dynamic pressure, due to air resistance. Air resistance is a function of speed SQUARED and the density of air. By starting the rocket that much higher, I believe they are essentially removing that inefficiency- by the time they're moving fast enough for it to matter, there isn't enough air for it to matter.
There's also the whole tyranny of rocketry equation. The first foot of elevation gained is the hardest and the first mile per hour of speed is the hardest. Starting even a little bit higher and faster is a big win over taking off from sea level.
And as others have said, they've got incredible flexibility here. Whatever orbit you want to be in, the launch will take place in that orbit. A lot of traditional rocket launches have 'instantaneous' launch windows where missing by 1 second is a no-go because the ground is only in the right spot at one moment.
Most important of all: let them try! If this whole thing is a bust, it's private enterprise and you and I lose nothing over it while getting to see an enormous jet. And if it does work, we all win from the increase in availability of satellites and access to space.
There are legitimate advantages to high altitude launch. A big one, perhaps the biggest, is that exhaust pressure of a rocket needs to be at least as high as the ambient atmospheric pressure at launch. This limits the expansion of exhaust and the sizes of nozzles for rockets that are launched at sea level. A notable example is the Falcon 9 launcher, which has 9 engines on the first stage and one similar engine with an engine bell that is almost the same diameter as the entire rocket for the second stage which only operates in a near-vacuum environment. Higher expansion translates to higher exhaust velocity (Isp) for identical propellants. Since the rocket equation is exponential with respect to the ratio of delta-V and exhaust velocity, even slightly higher exhaust velocity can translate to significant increases in overall stage performance.
To use the example of the Falcon 9 again, consider the second stage with a dry mass of 4 tonnes, 107.5 tonnes of propellant, and an exhaust velocity of 3.41 km/s. With a 5 tonne payload the stage can achieve a delta-V of: ln((107.5 + 4 + 5)/(4 + 5)) * 3.41 km/s = 8.7 km/s. Now, if we substitute the first stage sea level exhaust velocity of just 2.76 km/s the overall delta-V is 7.1 km/s, and to get to the same delta-V (8.7 km/s) now requires a mass ratio of 23.4:1, resulting in an effective payload of just 0.8 tonnes, less than 1/6th as much as the original payload!
In actuality the overall performance differences won't be quite as severe but this does point out the potential for a rocket launched from higher altitude to have equivalent performance to a much larger rocket launched from sea level.
Another major advantage is operational flexibility. You can launch from a wider variety of launch locations, which might make it easier to launch in a more timely manner, or could make it easier to launch certain kinds of payloads (which don't need to be shipped around the world, the launcher can come to you). And potentially it makes it possible to launch from more equatorial locations, gaining a slight orbital mechanics advantage.
However, all of this comes at some pretty steep costs. With this design it's harder to make incremental changes to the vehicle. One of the classic mechanisms for improving launcher performance is stretching stages, but that's out of the question here. You can't make the rocket bigger without making the carrier aircraft bigger as well.
Additionally, and most damning, the tradeoff here is a bad one. On the one hand you have a sea level launched rocket which needs to expend more propellant to reach orbit. However, propellant is dirt cheap, it's the cheapest part of a launch pretty much. Especially for a LOX/Kerosene rocket the propellant isn't even going to crack 7 digits in terms of cost, even for a big rocket. With high altitude launch some dirt cheap propellant is saved at the cost of an inordinately expensive carrier aircraft, and a very complex and dangerous flight profile (you need to have a piloted aircraft takeoff with a fully fueled rocket). Moreover, you've now cut off all of the most straightforward avenues for incremental improvements of the launch system: you can't make any part of it bigger without starting from square one with a new iteration.
And in a world where reusable rockets are becoming ever more commonplace this makes even less sense.
To use the example of the Falcon 9 again, consider the second stage with a dry mass of 4 tonnes, 107.5 tonnes of propellant, and an exhaust velocity of 3.41 km/s. With a 5 tonne payload the stage can achieve a delta-V of: ln((107.5 + 4 + 5)/(4 + 5)) * 3.41 km/s = 8.7 km/s. Now, if we substitute the first stage sea level exhaust velocity of just 2.76 km/s the overall delta-V is 7.1 km/s, and to get to the same delta-V (8.7 km/s) now requires a mass ratio of 23.4:1, resulting in an effective payload of just 0.8 tonnes, less than 1/6th as much as the original payload!
In actuality the overall performance differences won't be quite as severe but this does point out the potential for a rocket launched from higher altitude to have equivalent performance to a much larger rocket launched from sea level.
Another major advantage is operational flexibility. You can launch from a wider variety of launch locations, which might make it easier to launch in a more timely manner, or could make it easier to launch certain kinds of payloads (which don't need to be shipped around the world, the launcher can come to you). And potentially it makes it possible to launch from more equatorial locations, gaining a slight orbital mechanics advantage.
However, all of this comes at some pretty steep costs. With this design it's harder to make incremental changes to the vehicle. One of the classic mechanisms for improving launcher performance is stretching stages, but that's out of the question here. You can't make the rocket bigger without making the carrier aircraft bigger as well.
Additionally, and most damning, the tradeoff here is a bad one. On the one hand you have a sea level launched rocket which needs to expend more propellant to reach orbit. However, propellant is dirt cheap, it's the cheapest part of a launch pretty much. Especially for a LOX/Kerosene rocket the propellant isn't even going to crack 7 digits in terms of cost, even for a big rocket. With high altitude launch some dirt cheap propellant is saved at the cost of an inordinately expensive carrier aircraft, and a very complex and dangerous flight profile (you need to have a piloted aircraft takeoff with a fully fueled rocket). Moreover, you've now cut off all of the most straightforward avenues for incremental improvements of the launch system: you can't make any part of it bigger without starting from square one with a new iteration.
And in a world where reusable rockets are becoming ever more commonplace this makes even less sense.
I thought the argument was that rockets spend a lot of fuel just getting through the thick low part of the atmosphere, which is the same point at which they're heaviest. Skip the start & you need less fuel.
>> a lot of fuel just getting through the thick low part of the atmosphere
That statement is misunderstood. Google "rocket ISP". Rocket engines work less efficiently at lower altitudes, and cannot be properly optimized due to the rapidly changing pressures between sea level and the near-vacuum at altitude. They burn extra fuel due to this inefficiency. And since rockets are at their heaviest in the lower atmosphere, even little inefficiencies really add up. Atmospheric drag is next to nothing in the equation. Even speed isn't the issue. It is about how they cannot design an efficient engine bell to cover the initial climb.
That statement is misunderstood. Google "rocket ISP". Rocket engines work less efficiently at lower altitudes, and cannot be properly optimized due to the rapidly changing pressures between sea level and the near-vacuum at altitude. They burn extra fuel due to this inefficiency. And since rockets are at their heaviest in the lower atmosphere, even little inefficiencies really add up. Atmospheric drag is next to nothing in the equation. Even speed isn't the issue. It is about how they cannot design an efficient engine bell to cover the initial climb.
I've also heard that fuel is not the main cost contributor to a rocket launch. In fact, it is a really insignificant portion of the cost. It is the vessel that contains giant amounts of fuel that is costly. Hence reusability from SpaceX makes sense and so does launching the rocket from high altitude to avoid building the first stage all together.
But it's not just altitude, right? Acceleration and Speed are important factors to getting to orbit (not that I'm a rocket surgeon).
Right. The closer to sea level you are, the denser the atmosphere you're pushing out of the way as you accelerate - thus, the more force you need to use in doing so, and the lower the acceleration you obtain from the propellant you expend.
So if you can get above the thickest part of the atmosphere, say attached to a giant goofy-looking airplane, before you light off your engine - rather than having to push your way through that same thick air on your own - you need less propellant, overall, to reach orbit, which means you can devote a larger fraction of your launch vehicle's mass to payload.
So if you can get above the thickest part of the atmosphere, say attached to a giant goofy-looking airplane, before you light off your engine - rather than having to push your way through that same thick air on your own - you need less propellant, overall, to reach orbit, which means you can devote a larger fraction of your launch vehicle's mass to payload.
Rockets are not moving very quickly in the lower atmosphere, which makes a real difference.
Space shuttle was 3 g - 1 from gravity = 2g net acceleration, but that's kept low for passengers. Even then 2 g net ~= + 44 MPH every second.
So, first 15 seconds your going under 660 MPH which is not that fast, but you get ~1.4 miles up. Because drag increases with speed very quickly the next bit is harder, but you very quickly get above what an aircraft could take you with ~5.6 miles at 30 seconds. Note: Higher g's mean more drag in denser atmosphere, but less gravity drag it's a meaningful trade-off.
However, aircraft's velocity is very useful essentially saving those first 15 seconds of full burn, but comes at the price of needing more structural elements to support the hanging rocket.
Space shuttle was 3 g - 1 from gravity = 2g net acceleration, but that's kept low for passengers. Even then 2 g net ~= + 44 MPH every second.
So, first 15 seconds your going under 660 MPH which is not that fast, but you get ~1.4 miles up. Because drag increases with speed very quickly the next bit is harder, but you very quickly get above what an aircraft could take you with ~5.6 miles at 30 seconds. Note: Higher g's mean more drag in denser atmosphere, but less gravity drag it's a meaningful trade-off.
However, aircraft's velocity is very useful essentially saving those first 15 seconds of full burn, but comes at the price of needing more structural elements to support the hanging rocket.
Drag at low altitudes is much worse, so perhaps just bringing it to a higher altitude is that much more efficient?
Build a 3 mile tall launch platform that is also an EM rail. Or better yet, BORE a tunnel through a really tall mountain.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pico_de_Orizaba
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pico_de_Orizaba
If you're above the the weather, you can launch any time.
This plane doesn't look like it can handle bad weather well either.
If it flies above or away from thunderclouds, then that's handling bad weather that would have otherwise delayed a ground launch.
The idea would be to launch somewhere other than the bad weather. Airplanes can move around to avoid weather. Another advantage would be more flexibility in launch window; the airplane can launch and get high up, then linger into a specific launch timeframe at a specific place, rather than being fixed in place and only changing launch time.
This doesn't make much sense... yes, you can have two fully operational launch sites in different geographical locations but the payload can't be in two places at once. If you have bad weather where the payload is then you won't launch until after is passed.
The plane can take off ahead of the bad weather and go to where weather is predicted to be better. Or, the plane can take off, go to where weather is better, then take off and fly above the troposphere in the original location and launch on time and on place.
Could someone explain why Burt Rutan designed Stratolaunch with two separate tail structures instead of joining them with a center section like the wing? It seems like the center wing could be subject to a lot of stress, especially in turbulence or with an engine out.
Control surfaces behind the payload would be aerodynamically shadowed, and, depending on payload shape, either unable to develop significant control moments or subject to chaotic airflow that'd make them more of a liability than an asset.
But wouldn't a center tail section still help with overall structural strength even if it didn't have control surfaces?
Could be that it provides more flexiblity to the airframe. Or that too much horizontal stabilizer would limit pitch ability. Other aerodynamic effects may be in play as well, since it's carrying the payload in the center.
Single engine out isn't probably much of a concern as there are two redundant engines per side.
I'm just speculating though.
Single engine out isn't probably much of a concern as there are two redundant engines per side.
I'm just speculating though.
I just saw the Spruce Goose in the Evergreen Aviation Museum near Portland. That has a wing span of 320’ and is already impressive in its own right. This must be better! Bit of trivia: the Goose is made largely of wood, one of the older “composites” :)
She is a gorgeous aircraft, isn't she? I'm glad she found a good home; we'd be the poorer for her loss.
What exactly is the back of the napkin calculation for Delta v saved by dropping a rocket from 40,000 ft and 400 knot airspeed vs launching from ground level?
If we assume that 7800-8000 m/s is required for low earth orbit, how much does stratolaunch plan to shave off? How much Delta v is saved in the current small rocket setup with the pegasus dropped from an ex commercial airliner at approximately the same altitude?
If we assume that 7800-8000 m/s is required for low earth orbit, how much does stratolaunch plan to shave off? How much Delta v is saved in the current small rocket setup with the pegasus dropped from an ex commercial airliner at approximately the same altitude?
Replying to myself, these seem to be the rough numbers:
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14456602
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14456602
Max Q occurs at roughly 40,000 feet for ground launched rockets.
If you start at 40,000 feet, you can accelerate largely sideways and reduce gravity losses without running into the atmosphere too hard and needing a stronger structure.
If you start at 40,000 feet, you can accelerate largely sideways and reduce gravity losses without running into the atmosphere too hard and needing a stronger structure.
1400 knot orbital velocity if you're flying east.
In comparison the Airbus A380's wingspan is about 260 feet, and the Boeing 747-8's is about 230'.
Some pictures of this thing on the runway available here: https://www.space.com/39155-stratolaunch-wprlds-largest-plan...
Can't wait to see videos of it in action.
Can't wait to see videos of it in action.
My wife and I saw this plane outside the hangar when we were driving through Mojave I seriously thought it was two planes parked next to each other. The scale is really impressive. I'm hoping there are some hints as to when it will be flying so that we can drive out and watch.
> I seriously thought it was two planes parked next to each other
It is. Just that it's the first such pair of aircraft that stay parked next to each other in all regimes, not just the one.
It is. Just that it's the first such pair of aircraft that stay parked next to each other in all regimes, not just the one.
> It is. Just that it's the first such pair of aircraft that stay parked next to each other in all regimes, not just the one.
Apparently not! I learned from the video embedded in the article (just before the paragraph starting with "The Next Steps") that Scaled Composites has already built one: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scaled_Composites_White_Knight...
and from there I found a wikipedia category about them: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Twin-fuselage_aircraf... including another Burt Rutan design: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rutan_Boomerang
The Stratolaunch is just so much bigger.
Apparently not! I learned from the video embedded in the article (just before the paragraph starting with "The Next Steps") that Scaled Composites has already built one: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scaled_Composites_White_Knight...
and from there I found a wikipedia category about them: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Twin-fuselage_aircraf... including another Burt Rutan design: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rutan_Boomerang
The Stratolaunch is just so much bigger.
Why would they seemingly manually create the panorama instead of using photoshop to create a smoother image? Seems like the vignette and color mismatch would be worth removing?
I think it's a stylistic choice to emphasize that it's so wide, they needed to make a panorama.
article is not readable, why anyone still links this site?
https://imgur.com/a/OKPeK8C
thank you wired for warning, i will make sure not to open any link anymore
https://imgur.com/a/OKPeK8C
thank you wired for warning, i will make sure not to open any link anymore
I don't know if ultimately there is a big enough market but I can at least see theoretical potential there, and just in general it often works better to try to carve out a specialized niche with higher margins then take the 400kg gorillas head-on at their greatest strengths. And if the medium/medium-heavy launchers work then this doesn't have a total joke payload either, 3.4 to 6 tons to LEO isn't just cubesats.
It'll be interesting to see how it goes at any rate whether it pans out or not. It's ambitious and it could offer a niche but new additional mission capability.