/sci/ - Science & Math

>>11950606
What if... Sea Dragon sized SRBs?

>>11904116

>>11568638
IIRC the nozzle will be sealed by the ballast, so there would be no water in the combustion chamber.

>>11551216
>implying that Sea Dragon can ever be cringe

>>11494292
The biggest issue with steel is that it's dense compared to aluminum. Aluminum is super lightweight, it almost unreal. The difference in densities become much more apparent for "smaller rockets" which makes ones using steel very heavy unless they use balloon tanks. Steel only pulls out ahead of aluminum for very large rockets like Starship or Sea Dragon.

>>11025634
>Why does no one ever bring up the Sea Dragon?
On this thread? Because it's really just a meme. While lots of elements of Sea Dragon were clever and the mindset behind it's design was a step in the right direction, it's just not a feasible design. Truax assumed some pretty optimistic try masses for the tanks which were borderline unrealistic, and he just assumed that the combustion instability of such massive engines can be easily fixed (despite the fact that the F-1 took a long time to get it's instabilities worked out). It's an impressive design, but it wouldn't really work if it were built.

Elsewhere? Probably because the rocket is fairly obscure. Since it never left the drawing board, there isn't anything tangible to get people's attention about it. Plus it's development life was pretty short.

Look at what I found!
http://neverworld.net/truax/