BeechTalk - BT

Username Protected · **Posted:** 31 May 2017, 20:43

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

http://www.seattletimes.com/business/bo ... -its-lair/

Username Protected · **Posted:** 31 May 2017, 21:22

How does it compare to the Cirrus SF-50?
:rofl:

Username Protected · **Posted:** 01 Jun 2017, 00:04

Dumb question........ why do you need two fuselages?

Username Protected · **Posted:** 01 Jun 2017, 00:06

Username Protected wrote:

Dumb question........ why do you need two fuselages?

Marital discord? :shrug:

Username Protected · **Posted:** 01 Jun 2017, 00:11

Username Protected wrote:

Dumb question........ why do you need two fuselages?

Launching rockets to space from center of the aircraft...

Username Protected · **Posted:** 01 Jun 2017, 09:57

The largest and most pointless airplane since the Spruce Goose. The mass fraction of air-launch rockets is such that you have to lift 500 tonn rocket in order to launch 6 tonn payload to parking orbit, and I'm being generous here. But here we're talking a launch mass of 200 tonn at best. So the issue here is that even the biggest aircraft in the world is not big enough. And the whole scheme is not cost-competitive downmarket.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 01 Jun 2017, 11:21

Username Protected wrote:

The largest and most pointless airplane since the Spruce Goose. The mass fraction of air-launch rockets is such that you have to lift 500 tonn rocket in order to launch 6 tonn payload to parking orbit, and I'm being generous here. But here we're talking a launch mass of 200 tonn at best. So the issue here is that even the biggest aircraft in the world is not big enough. And the whole scheme is not cost-competitive downmarket.

Then I am curious, why this solution has multiple firms chasing it.
And what their engineers are missing. Sort of like the analysis on the SF50, all the engineers keep saying it will not work, is not efficient...

Tim

Username Protected · **Posted:** 01 Jun 2017, 11:41

I think Burt Rutan was hinting about this when we saw him speak a few weeks ago.
People and products will be going to space in different ways in the near future.

You and me, Us, will have a chance to go to space for a reasonable price in our lifetimes.
Perhaps buzz the Moon even.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 01 Jun 2017, 12:23

>> You and me, Us, will have a chance to go to space for a reasonable price in our lifetimes.

Most likely, in an urn...

Username Protected · **Posted:** 01 Jun 2017, 13:13

plenty of justification for a heavy lift orbital injection system, do you honestly think one of musk's rockets will be able to cheaply place anything over 5 tons into orbit?

not a chance, they just recently had to forgo the recovery of the booster to get a 13,380 lb payload into orbit, which added great expense- and this setup can lift how much?

Username Protected · **Posted:** 01 Jun 2017, 14:41

Username Protected wrote:

The largest and most pointless airplane since the Spruce Goose. The mass fraction of air-launch rockets is such that you have to lift 500 tonn rocket in order to launch 6 tonn payload to parking orbit, and I'm being generous here. But here we're talking a launch mass of 200 tonn at best. So the issue here is that even the biggest aircraft in the world is not big enough. And the whole scheme is not cost-competitive downmarket.

Then I am curious, why this solution has multiple firms chasing it.
And what their engineers are missing. Sort of like the analysis on the SF50, all the engineers keep saying it will not work, is not efficient...

Tim

Username Protected · **Posted:** 01 Jun 2017, 14:50

Username Protected wrote:

I don't think they are missing anything. The view that a satellite weighs 6 tons - that is the past. The present and future are more, smaller satellites rather than fewer, bigger ones.

chicken/egg, cost and options to deploy has driven the size down