Microsoft Co-Founder Paul Allen Unveils Giant Plane for Private Space Launches

http://www.space.com/13915-paul-allen-giant-plane-stratolaunch-systems-private-space.html

by sasvari • 15 years ago

104 76 15 years ago

darklajid3• 15 years ago

I suck at physics and the article is light on details. Help me out.

What is the gain here? You're still launching a rocket, but now at 30000m/9000ft? A rocket that is supposed to be similar to what exists today?

I mean - smart people have this idea, so the benefit must be huge. Can someone explain in slow speech (How'd you explain the novelty of this to your kid) the incentive to me?

bulte-rs2• 15 years ago

Considering that 30 kilometers is almost 100,000 feet you have a lot air you do NOT have to cross. This takes less (solid) fuel and is thus cheaper.

darklajid3• 15 years ago

I already stated my ignorance, so - I'll believe whatever claims are made here.

But - my mind desperately tries to fight that and tells me about a _huuuge_ machine that needs to be maintained, and consumes fuel as well.

And getting to 30km straight up in a rocket shape instead of going up in a loooong slope powered by someone else seems expensive, in terms of energy used.

Someone2• 15 years ago

Most of the air, in fact. If you look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Comparison_US_standard_atm..., you will see that air density is way lower at 30km.

That is important because a lot of the energy expenditure for rockets is spent overcoming air resistance, instead of for lifting the rocket against gravity (that also is what makes the idea of a space elevator so enticing).

Once you are at 30km, getting anywhere is relatively cheap.

dalke6• 15 years ago

I'll dupe the comment I wrote on another thread (http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3349294 ) on this topic....

I hadn't realized that there already is an air-launch-to-orbit system called "Pegasus" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pegasus_(rocket) ).

It comments that air launches reduce the costs to orbit not (as ColinWright rightly points out) through energy savings but because it 1) doesn't have as many weather-related launch delays, 2) it can insert into almost arbitrary orbits, 3) there's no need for a blast-proof pad and related ground equipment, 4) launches over an ocean save on insurance costs, and reduce collateral damage should an explosion occur, and 5) the higher altitude means the first stage engine bell doesn't need to optimized for higher pressures, and the lack of high cross-winds means there's no need for gimbals; lighter fins suffice.

On the other hand, it also says that Pegasus is "one of the most expensive "launch-to-orbit" vehicles" (I assume per-kilogram to orbit), but that the flexibility in choosing the orbit makes up for it for small payloads which otherwise must piggyback.

darklajid3• 15 years ago

Thanks, that article (especially [1]) made a couple of claims that I could digest and believe.

1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pegasus_%28rocket%29#Carrier_a...

demallien• 15 years ago

Not to mention that this dramatically reduces MaxQ (the maximum dynamic pressure on the airframe), which reduces design constraints on the spacecraft/upper stages of the rocket.

russell2• 15 years ago

It is enlightening to compare the function of the airplane as the first stage of a rocket with the first stage of the Saturn V rocket. The S-IC weighed 5 million pounds and it got the assembly to an altitude of 200,000 feet and a speed of 6000 mph. The second [and third] stage did most of the delta V. It got the Apollo into orbit and into trans-lunar injection (a bunch more delta V). In short, all the first stage did was to get the second stage up above the atmosphere so that the second [and third] stage could fly like hell.

EDIT: dalke pointed out that my assertion that the second stage reached orbit was incorrect. Thanks and apologies for the sloppy proofing.

dalke6• 15 years ago

The third-stage brought the Apollo into final orbit and then into TLI. The second stage stopped at just over 100 miles altitude.

damoncali• 15 years ago

For a real example, though not for manned flight, check out Orbital's Pegasus:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pegasus_(rocket)

johno2154• 15 years ago

Launching at a higher altitude allows the rocket engines to be optimized for low atmospheric pressure increasing their efficiency. In addition, the trajectory can be turned to a more horizontal angle earlier without having to fight drag too much.

Another benefit of air launch is the ability to launch at a location and time of one's choosing. This is useful to avoid weather, avoid flying over land when launching in certain directions, and not having to share a range with other launchers.

johno2154• 15 years ago

A negative is that it is a lot harder to check-out the vehicle when it is attached to an airplane than when it is on the ground. Also, on the ground the successful start-up of all the engines can be verified before the vehicle is released. If one engine fails to start, the rest can be shutdown with the vehicle still intact on the ground. But, when an air-launching, there is no going back once the vehicle is dropped.

sukuriant2• 15 years ago

Perhaps you can start the engines before dropping? If only a second or so before? Or is the force that instantaneous, that strong?

FrojoS• 15 years ago

Interesting, can you recommend further reading for the rocket engine optimization? It seems though, that in this case, SpaceX's Merlin Engine will be used.

johno2154• 15 years ago

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rocket_engine_nozzle#Atmospheri...

leoedin• 15 years ago

The companies involved are like a supergroup of cutting edge aerospace. Scaled and SpaceX collaborating!

It's a nice concept, and it obviously works on a smaller scale for the pegasus guys as well as Virgin Galactic (although they're not putting anything into orbit). Hopefully this is successful!

michaelfeathers• 15 years ago

I thought Burt Rutan was working with Virgin Galactic on their venture.

jmcqk6• 15 years ago

He is/was. However, Paul Allen was a partner when Rutan was going after (and won) the X-prize. So really, they're just getting back together to work on something new.

HeyLaughingBoy• 15 years ago

I thought he retired a few months ago.

davidhansen• 15 years ago

Could someone help me understand the space thing? Specifically the phenomenon of rich engineers and businessmen like Allen, Carmack, Branson, Bezos, Shuttleworth, etc spending huge amounts of money on space-travel-related projects.

I, like many nerds, grew up with a powerful fascination with space, cosmology, and the myriad science fiction novels based around the various problems and possibilities of space travel. I understand the allure. I am also a capitalist, and therefore don't begrudge these guys the opportunity to do with their money as they see fit.

What I don't get is why we never hear of wealthy engineers spending their money on technology projects that would have a much much larger benefit to humanity, and arguably cooler than spaceflight. Things like nanotech, robotics, and hell, even cold fusion come to mind.

Why space?

mkr-hn2• 15 years ago

Because someone has to. Otherwise we're bound to this little rock forever. And bored billionaires are the only people with the money and will to do it right now. It's also the only way we'll develop better ways to get commercial payloads into orbit given the recent global obsession with austerity.

edited to add:

Storing a library in your pocket seemed impossible (or at least commercially unviable) a hundred years ago. No one would have given it a thought. It was just too far out there. How could you pack that much paper into a pocket? I know the limitations on space travel are grounded in sound science and will probably never be overcome. But I don't like the idea of accepting that we'll never find a way around it.

"Because it's there" is good enough for now.

onemoreact• 15 years ago

Just as fitting that much paper was an issue so is trying to fit that much propellant into an improved rocket. The number one limitation on real spaceflight (AKA past the moon) is power. Building an actual fusion reactor on earth would be worth more in therms of actually sending people to the ort cloud than all the private 'space flight' (aka yacht clubs) out there.

PS: I am mostly taking issue with sub orbital flights / amusement parks. If you want to feel weightless for a few minutes a trip on something like the comet comet is affordable for most people and few people bother.

nitrogen2• 15 years ago

Tesla had a bit of an idea of the library in a pocket: http://books.google.com/books?id=nN8DAAAAMBAJ&lpg=PA476&...

draggnar• 15 years ago

are you suggesting interstellar space travel will not have benefits for humanity? there are also plenty of other rich engineers that are interested in the other projects you mentioned.

notcertain• 15 years ago

Elon Musk's stated long-term goal is to colonize Mars. SpaceX is a step in that direction. It's an awesome long term goal in my opinion and always makes me think of early transoceanic exploration.

cryptoz• 15 years ago

Space travel is of ultimate benefit to humanity. They see that we are capable of being a multi-world species, and that's one of the greatest goals there can be. Nanotech and robotics are huge parts of it. These spaceships only work with extremely small computers and smart robotics. But the drive to be a real spacefaring civilization with colonies on Mars and perhaps Ceres is huge - with a potential at that point to go interstellar.

Mvandenbergh2• 15 years ago

Feasibility? No-one has ever shown evidence that there is such a thing as cold fusion and nanotech is just what material scientists put on their grant applications to make their projects look cool.

laurentoget• 15 years ago

Given that the only suspected habitable planet we know of is 600 light years away, the feasibility of space travel is not exactly a done deal either.

johno2154• 15 years ago

[I don't think the parent should be down-voted. It is a fair question to ask.]

Speaking for me personally, there is a strong attraction within me to see humans expand, explore and colonize the physical world around us.

I just don't get as excited about us inventing better ways to entertain ourselves, increasing life expectancy, making our lives less difficult, etc. (Even though these pursuits are arguably better for the humans alive today and definitely more profitable)

I can only hypothesize that other people may feel similarly.

[Please don't take this as an argument for space exploration. It is just an explanation for why space is alluring to some.]

timroman• 15 years ago

There's also a ton of money to be made here. The US is paying Russia $60 million per seat into space. They'll probably buy 6 seats in 2012. There is incredible opportunity in the industry with the retirement of the shuttle fleet and expansion of the industry.

zaphoyd• 15 years ago

Wouldn't Bill Gates be an example of that? Vaccines/medical programs, next generation fission reactors, educational technology?

roc• 15 years ago

I think it just boils down to "space catches people's attention". Gates can get some articles written now and again when he signs a large check. But buying millions of mosquito nets doesn't sell papers like a new space-plane.

Similarly with people like Dean Kamen. He gets a bit of press now and again as he makes modest enhancements to the Luke arm. But stirling engines and water purifiers for the rest of the planet simply don't sell papers.

DougWebb• 15 years ago

Could someone help me understand the Atlantic Ocean thing? Specifically the phenomenon of rich royalty and businessmen like Columbus, Queen Isabella, etc spending huge amounts of money on ocean-travel-related projects.

I, like many nerds, grew up with a powerful fascination with oceans, foreign lands, and the myriad mythology stories based around the various problems and possibilities of ocean travel. I understand the allure. I am also a capitalist, and therefore don't begrudge these guys the opportunity to do with their money as they see fit.

What I don't get is why we never hear of wealthy royalty spending their money on technology projects that would have a much much larger benefit to humanity, and arguably cooler than ocean travel. Things like medicine, farming, and hell, even waterwheel-powered machinery come to mind.

Why cross the Atlantic?

keiferski• 15 years ago

This isn't Reddit. You can make your point without being smarmy about it.

T-hawk• 15 years ago

Profit was the motive for funding Columbus to cross the Atlantic, by finding a faster or easier trading route to the Oriental sources of spices and silk. Profit was still the motive for later explorers of the Americas, in mining or stealing Aztec gold and silver, then tobacco and cotton and sugar plantations.

It's unclear yet where feasible profit opportunities exist for development in space. (Also, we can _see_ space with telescopes, there isn't a Pacific Ocean on the other side of space that we have to send someone to discover.) If you want to see some real space industry, hope that somebody discovers a gold asteroid.

Finally, remember that from Columbus to Jamestown elapsed over a hundred years. Less than half of that timespan has yet elapsed since Yuri Gagarin. These things take time.

russell2• 15 years ago

I think you have the wrong picture of the scale of the investment required to fund Columbus. It was common for businessmen to fund voyages to known places. Columbus had a more difficult time because of the unknown. He actually had a pretty good idea of the distance involved (because his estimate of the radius of the earth was too low) and the Irish and Vikings had been getting almost there for centuries. He went to royalty because they could afford bigger risks. The reason that royalty werent involved much in scientific and commercial advancement was that their sport of choice was war.

krschultz• 15 years ago

Actually I think it's the scale of it. Governments, charity/foundations, universities, and a lot of large companies are pumping billions of dollars into those fields. You can walk around blindfolded and you'll run into 5 universities building new 'green energy research' and 'biomedical research' labs. A single billionaire can't really make a dent in that. Bill Gates even makes that point when he talks about education - his entire wealth is a drop in that bucket.

But space is a market where a billionare can make a difference. Until now the only game in town was NASA and its contractors. And they are not very efficient. SpaceX in a nutshell is proving what modern managment techniques and modern engineering tools can do to the cost structure of NASA-like technology. That's not that far out there. The payoff is pretty likely to happen (contracts from NASA, contracts to launch private satellites). The payoff for nanotechnology is way way further out and far more nebulus.

angersock4• 15 years ago

To better understand, look at your list of engineers/entrepeneurs first:

-Paul Allen: Acquired QDOS for Microsoft, worked with folks who saw potential in software instead of hardware for desktops.

-John Carmack: Cofounded id software, code is especially notable for being flexibly licensed, open for modification, and for being built with the next-generation of computers in mind. Consider that Quake required an FPU when they weren't always common, and that the first and third games in that series ran the game logic in a virtual machine (a VM, for an FPS, in the 90s, on consumer hardware).

-Richard Branson: Built up empire in music industry by taking risks, solidified by expanding into transportation by attempting (if I'm not mistaken) something like Southwest for Europe, and expanded into telecom as first network not needing its own infrastructure.

-Jeff Bezos: Built up Amazon, and insisted on long-term solutions. Because of this, significant chunks of the infrastructure we all use today run through projects like AWS.

-Mark Shuttleworth: Founded Ubuntu Foundation and laid the groundwork for Linux on the Desktop (a running joke now, but still a valid goal). Later work was making the decision to switch from X to Wayland, which one day may pay off.

A common trend among all of these folks is their ability to forgo the "easy" solution in favor of a longer-term, harder, but ultimately more profitable one. Their decision to look at the long term is what has made them successful, and in most of their cases their contemporaries likely saw them as being either silly or nuts (or both).

So, why aren't they investing in {nanotech,robotics,cold fusion}?

Nanotech is a great buzzword. My khakis have nanotech. I think the toothpaste I used this morning has nanotech. When you actually talk with folks in the field, though, it doesn't really serve a great purpose other than securing NSF grants. There is fantastic basic research in materials science and chip fabrication going on, but the idea of doing something as outright amazing as a molecular assembler is pretty far from where we are now--and anything else is basic engineering that frankly doesn't do much for the species as a whole.

Robotics is another great buzzword. Here's the issue in a nutshell, though: any robot you show me is going to be less versatile than a human (of even minimal intelligence and skill), and will take more effort to manufacture. To put it differently, the human body is the most complex mechanism on Earth, and the only one that can be produced by entirely unskilled labor. Robotics' main purpose these days seems to be either cleaning or helping one group of humans oppress another--GM tried to use them in mass number in the 80s and damn near wrecked the company. Why do we need robots? Why does the species (not just some first-world folks) benefit from them? Why not just use people?

Cold fusion has not been shown to be possible, and (for the worse) the entire topic is ridiculed and somewhat of a pariah in the only circles that can really do useful work on it. Some folks still press on (godspeed Focardi!), but the timescale of actual progress is not looking good. This is really sad, because cheap energy actually benefits the species as a whole, and would be unconditionally a good thing, for everyone (third- and first-world alike).

So, finally,let's talk about space.

We have a limited amount of resources on this planet--even setting aside arguments about how the resources are distributed, it is obvious that one day we will hit peak. It might takes decades, or centuries, but it will happen. With our current cultural emphasis on growth (and the attendant acceleration of consumption of resources), we are only getting into a worse position.

Sure, we can limit ourselves and attempt sustainability, but the burden of that (reducing consumption and procreation, etc.) is a very large one, and it seems that the only places with the wealth and technology to take the long view are the same ones with the populations most resistant to loss of creature comforts and centralized control (almost certainly necessary).

Long term, we can stabilize on Earth and go out with a whimper instead of a bang, or we can try to do better.

Space is better. Leaving to procure more resources is better. Distributing the human race so no cataclysmic event can wipe us all out is better. Exploring our universe (or even, initially, our solar system) is better.

Any other course of action, regardless of how humanitarian or efficient or resourceful, is picking out ahead of time the color on the coffin of the species.

dalke6• 15 years ago

I agree with everything you said, except for "the human body is the most complex mechanism on Earth." How do you measure that complexity? How much more complex is the human body than that of an octopus?

felipemnoa4• 15 years ago

You first say: "A common trend among all of these folks is their ability to forgo the "easy" solution in favor of a longer-term, harder, but ultimately more profitable one"

And then you say:

>>Robotics is another great buzzword. Here's the issue in a nutshell, though: any robot you show me is going to be less versatile than a human (of even minimal intelligence and skill), and will take more effort to manufacture. To put it differently, the human body is the most complex mechanism on Earth, and the only one that can be produced by entirely unskilled labor. Robotics' main purpose these days seems to be either cleaning or helping one group of humans oppress another--GM tried to use them in mass number in the 80s and damn near wrecked the company. Why do we need robots? Why does the species (not just some first-world folks) benefit from them? Why not just use people?

This second comment contradicts your first. Robotics is hard, really hard (especially humanoid robots), the benefits to humanity are huge. We are already benefiting immensely from robots. i.e. A lot of types of automated manufacturing.

Finally you say:

>>Why does the species (not just some first-world folks) benefit from them? Why not just use people?

It almost makes me think that you are just joking or baiting people since the benefits seem self evident. It would be like saying similar things about cars when replacing the horse.

mikeash2• 15 years ago

I'm pretty sure that far more money is poured into research for nanotech, robotics, and alternative energy sources. These space ventures are making the news precisely because they're uncommon. You never hear of wealthy engineers spending their money on the other stuff because that's not news, that's just commonplace.

InclinedPlane2• 15 years ago

Access to space has stagnated over the past several decades for several reasons. First, during the cold war building an orbital launcher was too fraught with geopolitical weight because it was too similar to building an ICBM. Moreover, the cold war (aside from perhaps the Apollo project) sucked most of the aerospace engineering talent into working on defense projects. Second, traditionally all launch vehicles have been government funded, with all of the bureaucracy and inefficiency that that entails. In the US government contracted launch vehicle development programs use cost plus contracts which actively discourage cost reductions since that would lower total revenues and profit margins. Third, for these reasons and others almost all individuals who have been to space have done so as part of government manned spaceflight programs.

This has created the following situation: overly expensive launch vehicles and a dearth of private manned spaceflight possibilities. This both hampers mankind's efforts in space (since launch is more expensive than it should be) and creates several business opportunities. By building next generation launch vehicles without all the bloat of traditional government procurement processes it's possible to run programs leaner and faster and to produce more cost effective launch vehicles. SpaceX has already proved this with the Falcon 9. If your goals are altruistic: to further mankind's abilities to explore and colonize space, then that's an end in itself. If your goals are profit driven then that's an opportunity to capture a good chunk of the multi-billion dollar per year international satellite launch market. Also, by lowering launch costs, increasing reliability, and reducing operational overhead it becomes possible to cater to the largely untapped space tourism business. More so, it's also possible to build specialized sub-orbital vehicles to cater to the sub-orbital space tourism market.

Today there is an enormous gap between what the market wants and what traditional government directed launch services are capable of providing. It's already been proven possible to lower launch costs below even what the Chinese government is capable of. Further innovation will likely lower those costs even more, fueling a boom in satellite launch and private manned spaceflight.

Few other industries have had such seemingly low hanging fruit in terms of such a stark difference between what was technologically possible and what was the state of the industry. Nanotech is still working through the early stages and defining the fundamentals, it is nowhere near prime time. Cold fusion is probably not even physically possible, given the scientific evidence. Other technologies too have their downsides.

Also, spaceflight has an enormous benefit to mankind. Satellites help us observe and understand our world while also linking it together with lines of communication and navigation. Increasing our capabilities in space also increases our abilities to defend ourselves from preventable natural disasters such as asteroid impacts. And ultimately colonizing space represents the future of mankind, we will not be tied to one planet for all eternity.

rbanffy• 15 years ago

Because if we don't leave this planet, the next dinosaur-killer-sized rock that happens to be on our way will wipe us out, rendering all our wonderful advancements in nanotech, robotics and cold fusion moot. It's a well known fact the dinosaurs only died because they had neither rockets nor nukes. ;-)

Now, more seriously, all these things, nanotech, robotics and cold-fusion - and many others - are the building blocks of a viable space faring civilization. Cheaper access to space is, of course, a large part, as well as business models that make space exploration economically feasible.

highace• 15 years ago

I wish we invested more into space exploration. Like, serious resources from every country in the world. To think that we squabble over silly things on this planet every day when there's a whole universe of stuff we can't even comprehend out there. Things always seem so trivial when you imagine the bigger picture, yet we worry about them anyway and I don't know why.

There's a saying that struck a note with me... "We've been born too late to explore the earth, but too early to explore the universe".

DilipJ• 15 years ago

A 385 feet wingspan! amazing. It's about time someone beat the Spruce Goose.

tomkarlo2• 15 years ago

The Spruce Goose was my first thought when I saw this (and not in a good way.) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hughes_H-4_Hercules

martinkallstrom• 15 years ago

Space bums... littering used fuel cans everywhere ("any orbit, any time"). How sustainable is it to keep leaving half of every vehicle somewhere on the way to your destination?

UPDATE: At first I was bemused that this was my reaction to their concept video. But then I realized that all the other concepts we have seen like SpaceX and Bezo's project actually don't litter. Isn't that correct? Other modern commercial space programs build for returning the entire vehicle home for reuse?

kijin• 15 years ago

Not exactly what you're looking for, but the Space Shuttle didn't leave any debris in orbit. The external tank was the only part that got dumped in the ocean, and it would shatter on impact because it's just a thin shell of aluminum. Solid boosters were much more robust, so they were salvaged and reused.

snorkel• 15 years ago

So ... what's the re-entry plan? Splash down? Call a Russian taxi?

InclinedPlane2• 15 years ago

Assuming that this ends up using a variant of the SpaceX dragon capsule the re-entry plan would be a powered descent onto a targeted landing site.

nradov• 15 years ago

I wonder why the fuselages are only joined by the wing and not at the tail? Won't that subject the wing boxes to a lot of twisting stress?

tomkarlo2• 15 years ago

If it's a fly-by wire system, you may be able to avoid twisting stress by varying the angles of the elevators on each tail so that you add force to oppose that twist. Also, I don't think it's expected to undertake any really drastic maneuvers. You'd fly it in decent weather on a relatively short ascent, and use a very gently take-off and landing profile.

Microsoft Co-Founder Paul Allen Unveils Giant Plane for Private Space Launches

Related Stories