6 ms·

Scott Manley walks through why this isn't helpful yet since they have nothing useful to launch in delightful detail (complete with Kerbal simulations): https://

Scott Manley walks through why this isn't helpful yet since they have nothing useful to launch in delightful detail (complete with Kerbal simulations): https://youtu.be/yw84qJIGZeo https://youtu.be/yw84qJIGZeo

jessriedel 8y ago
That's not a good summary. Yes, the plane is not very valuable in the short term (~4 years) because the only viable existing air-launched rocket is the pegasus, which is old and can be more cheaply launched on the smaller planes for which it was designed. But as Manley emphasizes, the whole stratolaunch plan is predicated on developing a new air-launched rocket, and we just don't know what the specs on that will be.
- ThenAsNow 8y ago
  > the whole stratolaunch plan is predicated on developing a new air-launched rocket, and we just don't know what the specs on that will be Neither will Stratolaunch, any time soon: https://spacenews.com/stratolaunch-abandons-launch-vehicle-program/ https://spacenews.com/stratolaunch-abandons-launch-vehicle-p...
  - floil 8y ago
    Can confirm. The whole group working on that effort has been laid off.
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
craftyguy 8y ago
What an embarrassingly (for him) short sighted 'walk through'. Just having more capability to perform ariel launches will encourage companies to make vehicles. The likely reason nothing exists today is because there really aren't any options today..
- vkou 8y ago
  Who is going to pay for companies to develop these vehicles? Developing and certifying a new rocket is an incredibly expensive affair. What are the cost savings this promises, compared to SpaceX?
  - craftyguy 8y ago
    > Who is going to pay for companies to develop these vehicles? VCs and other investors who see a company that wants to build these vehicles for cheaper launches? I don't really understand the point you are trying to make. Yes, it's expensive to build X, but usually $Y motivates people/companies to invest in the initial costs to cover building X because the payoff, $Y, will be greater than the cost. The news here is that the initial cost is potentially MUCH lower because now they can use this airplane as a stage 1 and not have to develop their own.
    - vkou 8y ago
      > VCs and other investors who see a company that wants to build these vehicles for cheaper launches? So, a currently non-existant SpaceX 'competitor' that wants to hitch itself to the success or failure of Stratolaunch? That's an incredibly sketchy business to build. You'll be sinking a billion or five dollars before you have any hope of seeing a cent of revenue, and then having an unknown probability of discovering that reusable rockets will eat your financial launch. Right now, $X is measured in the billions, $Y is anywhere between 0 and billions, and there's a %Z chance (Which is probably over 50%) that your complement product (Stratolaunch) will die before you get a cent of revenue.
      - craftyguy 8y ago
        SpaceX is not the only commercial space company, you know this right? There are others, and hopefully with this launch plane there will be even more.

jessriedel 8y ago

That's not a good summary. Yes, the plane is not very valuable in the short term (~4 years) because the only viable existing air-launched rocket is the pegasus, which is old and can be more cheaply launched on the smaller planes for which it was designed. But as Manley emphasizes, the whole stratolaunch plan is predicated on developing a new air-launched rocket, and we just don't know what the specs on that will be.

ThenAsNow 8y ago
> the whole stratolaunch plan is predicated on developing a new air-launched rocket, and we just don't know what the specs on that will be Neither will Stratolaunch, any time soon: https://spacenews.com/stratolaunch-abandons-launch-vehicle-program/ https://spacenews.com/stratolaunch-abandons-launch-vehicle-p...
- floil 8y ago
  Can confirm. The whole group working on that effort has been laid off.

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]

craftyguy 8y ago

What an embarrassingly (for him) short sighted 'walk through'. Just having more capability to perform ariel launches will encourage companies to make vehicles. The likely reason nothing exists today is because there really aren't any options today..

vkou 8y ago
Who is going to pay for companies to develop these vehicles? Developing and certifying a new rocket is an incredibly expensive affair. What are the cost savings this promises, compared to SpaceX?
- craftyguy 8y ago
  > Who is going to pay for companies to develop these vehicles? VCs and other investors who see a company that wants to build these vehicles for cheaper launches? I don't really understand the point you are trying to make. Yes, it's expensive to build X, but usually $Y motivates people/companies to invest in the initial costs to cover building X because the payoff, $Y, will be greater than the cost. The news here is that the initial cost is potentially MUCH lower because now they can use this airplane as a stage 1 and not have to develop their own.
  - vkou 8y ago
    > VCs and other investors who see a company that wants to build these vehicles for cheaper launches? So, a currently non-existant SpaceX 'competitor' that wants to hitch itself to the success or failure of Stratolaunch? That's an incredibly sketchy business to build. You'll be sinking a billion or five dollars before you have any hope of seeing a cent of revenue, and then having an unknown probability of discovering that reusable rockets will eat your financial launch. Right now, $X is measured in the billions, $Y is anywhere between 0 and billions, and there's a %Z chance (Which is probably over 50%) that your complement product (Stratolaunch) will die before you get a cent of revenue.
    - craftyguy 8y ago
      SpaceX is not the only commercial space company, you know this right? There are others, and hopefully with this launch plane there will be even more.