[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/sci/ - Science & Math

Search:

View post   
>> No.14565645 [View]
File: 360 KB, 2583x1317, Sea_Dragon_Launch_and_Recovery.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
14565645

>>14565635
>Yeah but
>>DUDE EPIC REDDIT ROCKET!!!!!!!!!
Don't insult Sea Dragon like that. It represents one of the last truly big and thought out ideas from NASA before it became the perpetually disappointed mess that it is today.

>> No.12182256 [View]
File: 360 KB, 2583x1317, Sea_Dragon_Launch_and_Recovery.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
12182256

>>12182243
>Its expendable right?
Nope.

>> No.12120504 [View]
File: 360 KB, 2583x1317, Sea_Dragon_Launch_and_Recovery.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
12120504

>>12120496
That said as recovery go it's wasteful.

>> No.11905257 [View]
File: 360 KB, 2583x1317, Sea_Dragon_Launch_and_Recovery.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
11905257

>>11905247
>500 metric tons to LEO
Anything.

>> No.11728100 [View]
File: 360 KB, 2583x1317, SeaDragonLaunchProfile1567821996191.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
11728100

>>11728044
>what else are they going to do?
Innovate. Or work on any of a range of concepts from the last 75 years. If I was Musk's lawyer, I'd be suing the fuck out of Blue Origin, Airbus and anyone else trying to copy the Falcon landing system.

>> No.11572591 [View]
File: 360 KB, 2583x1317, Sea_Dragon_Launch_and_Recovery.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
11572591

>>11572568
>sea dragon doesnt land
False. In fact, reuse is possible because it's so big. It allows the rocket to have a large cross-section relative to it's dry mass thus giving it a low enough terminal velocity with an inflatable skirt to land in the ocean in once piece. The landing allows for faster and therefore cheaper launches, because even though the rocket would be the cheapest per unit mass of payload it's still incredibly massive and expensive per launch.

>> No.10951210 [View]
File: 360 KB, 2583x1317, seaDragon06.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
10951210

Did somebody say "sea launch"?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hHG3Z0O9Xzo

>> No.10769219 [View]
File: 360 KB, 2583x1317, seaDragon06.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
10769219

How often can these things be launched, in theory? If there's a need to send a large constant stream of stuff into space, then would this be a good low-tech way of doing it?

>> No.10505483 [View]
File: 360 KB, 2583x1317, seaDragon06.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
10505483

>>10505446
>It's a shame that giant rocket engines like the ones Truax designed for Sea Dragon are impossible
Not so fast. My (very rough) calculations suggest that if Sea Dragon were scaled down so that it only needed nine F-1B engines in the first stage, then it could lift ~100t into LEO in a rocket that's only ~30m in diameter. That's still plenty of payload and size to play around with.

And that's using the original Sea Dragon's generous thrust-to-weight ratio at launch of 2. Using a thrust-to-weight ratio of 1.4 can potentially increase the payload to ~144t with a rocket that's ~43m in diameter.

Also, the Sea Dragon was already designed with reusability in mind. Refer to image.

Navigation
View posts[+24][+48][+96]