Moderators: richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR
Noshow wrote:No need to get too sceptical. These projects seem to progress fast. Quite different from the old bureaucracy of big space organisations with long schedules and enormous costs that avoid risk at any cost.
Stratolaunch's issue is that it looks to be too big for modern micro satellites. Maybe they can carry some "bus" into space, with some dozens of satellites in it or similar?
Noshow wrote:Could there be any big military payload waiting to be launched? It's big size capability does not seem to be needed for most commercial satellites today.
AirlineCritic wrote:It does look very, very weird. I wish them luck. Would be great to see this actually take off (in the business sense, too).
Dutchy wrote:Still a bizarre construction, can't wait to see if it works.
Max Q wrote:The most bewildering part of this design to
me is not joining the two booms at the tail
with one continuous horizontal stabilizer
They would seem to have eliminated the possibility to add great strength and rigidity by not doing this
Instead they’ll have two separate horizontal stabilizers widely separated
that will not be ‘flexing In harmony’
I would think that could create problems
Max Q wrote:They would seem to have eliminated the possibility to add great strength and rigidity by not doing this
Noshow wrote:Could there be any big military payload waiting to be launched? It's big size capability does not seem to be needed for most commercial satellites today.
WIederling wrote:Max Q wrote:They would seem to have eliminated the possibility to add great strength and rigidity by not doing this
That is what you don't want.
Imagine the forces you would have to cope with to keep the fuselages hard aligned via a connecting tailplane.
As it is now you can flex the parts without damage and without weight penalty.
Max Q wrote:Worked pretty well on the P38 !
WIederling wrote:Max Q wrote:Worked pretty well on the P38 !
Only this here is not a P38. completely different proportions.
einstein: make your model as simple as possible. but not simpler.
Francoflier wrote:WIederling wrote:Max Q wrote:Worked pretty well on the P38 !
Only this here is not a P38. completely different proportions.
einstein: make your model as simple as possible. but not simpler.
Not only was it much smaller, but it also had a single tailplane, giving the twin fuselage structure a lot more rigidity, which is the issue being discussed above.
JetBuddy wrote:I agree with Max Q here. The weakest point of this design is the centre wing. With enough force being applied on each fuselage independently of each other, that's where this thing would break apart. Flexibility is absolutely necessary for this design, but not enough structural integrity is also a problem.
Now hang a rocket in the center wing, add some unexpected heavy turbulence or wind shear working independently on each fuselage and visualize for yourself how each side starts oscillating back and forth while the yaw dampers are working overtime. It could be a complete disaster.
That being said, these Scaled Composites engineers know better than me. And I really do hope it works.
parapente wrote:Thing is it was originally designed to go with a rocket built by Spacex.As I recall it was a baby Falcon (Falcon 1? I am not sure).But the project collapsed.Now its carrying a far smaller rocket.Yes it can carry 3 of these but that misses the point of optimal launch points that an aircraft gives you.
I guess we will see.Anyrate will be great to see it fly!
Max Q wrote:The design does put significant stress on the center wing
With two long,separate ‘fuselage bodies’ flexing at different rates
and different amounts this stress
could be significantly reduced by
joining the two stabilizer units and it would be far stronger
There’s also a lot to be said for’if it looks right it will fly right’ it just doesn’t look right
Max Q wrote:There’s also a lot to be said for’if it looks right it will fly right’ it just doesn’t look right
flyingturtle wrote:Dang, how it reminds me of the aircraft Airbus was too afraid to build:
http://www.plig.net/things/pictures/tn/ ... s.jpg.html
Dutchy wrote:Still a bizarre construction, can't wait to see if it works.
KarelXWB wrote:Dutchy wrote:Still a bizarre construction, can't wait to see if it works.
It looks like a similar construction as the Virgin Galactic mother ship.
Max Q wrote:The design does put significant stress on the center wing
With two long,separate ‘fuselage bodies’ flexing at different rates
and different amounts this stress
could be significantly reduced by
joining the two stabilizer units and it would be far stronger
There’s also a lot to be said for’if it looks right it will fly right’ it just doesn’t look right
QuarkFly wrote:...And it must have one sophisticated system for yaw damping.
And with a large heavy rocket hanging form the center wing, the aircraft will have to handle two kinds of weight-load and aerodynamic effects...for flying with/without a payload.
Maybe pitch trim will be awkward too, without a rigid connection between the two tail sections.