Non US Sea Dragon?

[mlorrey]

Sure, but I envision building 10 or more separate units to assemble into space anyways, just at a larger scale than the tin cans the NASA dweebs thinks in.<br /><br />I know a guy in Florida with a big SWATH hull boat, couple hundred feet long, just sitting in his shipyard, for sale for a few million. If you asked NASA to build something similar, they'd quote you $10 billion, because that is what a bunch of dweebs in lab coats would charge to build something like that with scientific instruments and engineering studies, etc..<br /><br />Someone did a NASA cost study of the SpaceShipOne program, said NASA would have to budget $600 million to do the same thing Rutan did for $25-35 million. NASA wastes a lot of that money producing studies to make sure they don't "waste" any of the taxpayers money (of course wasting money on waste prevention studies, isn't waste, its just prudent budget oversight). <br /><br />NASA lives in the wrong paradigm to relate to the SeaDragon concept. I don't just base this on one datapoint. I also see that the External Tank actually costs under 3/4 of a million bucks to build, but NASA spends $30 million for each one. Where does the other $29 million go? Into "waste prevention"? "Risk" studies? Make work for white collar government employees is what it is.

 

[mlorrey]

Green tree hugging nonsense. If undersea nuke tests didn't kill them off, then your claims are bogus.

 

[pmn1]

<font color="yellow">There are no 500ton pay loads needing to be launched, if say 20years down the line NASA has a 500ton Son of Sky lab station to be launched, would they want to launch it in such a way? A 500 ton module would be such a massive investment I don’t think they would risk it, 500tons of fuel maybe but then 4 SDHLVs could do the job just as well, if the SDHLV flight rate was 6 launches per the cost would only be $800 mil per launch. </font><br /><br />How about a 500 ton fuel depot?<br /><br />Or making the module big eough to have 'empty floors' for equipment to be added afterwards.<br /><br /> http://www.spacedaily.com/news/oped-05zza.html<br /><br /><br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[nyarlathotep]

>>"I also see that the External Tank actually costs under 3/4 of a million bucks to build, but NASA spends $30 million for each one. Where does the other $29 million go?"<br /><br />It goes towards the hundreds, possibly thousands of people that NASA contractors need to keep permanantly on staff to build and transport the things, regardless of how many times the orbiters are launched. <br /><br />If NASA had 100 extra tanks delivered a year, it'd only cost them a few million more.

 

[publiusr]

The first thing people need to remember is that the enemies of Korolov thought they "didn't need" a rocket as big as R-7--which was the HLLV of its day. And some wanted to wait until warheads were shrunk down to make more compact ICBMs.<br /><br />I for one am very glad our first ICBM wasn't Minuteman and theirs wasn't the Topol-M or there would be no space race.<br /><br />R-7--the 'overlarge' rocket nobody needed--is now a best seller. There is no doubt in my mind that if Sea Dragon were to launch tomorrow--someone would find a payload for it.<br /><br />Sea Dragon would be perfect for the Russians in that they would no longer have to pay for their own launch facilities. Every Ruble spent on LV construction also goes to shipyard workers who once assembled Typhoon subs now being mothballed. Sub metal could find its way in Early Sea Dragon launches, and be a way to dispose of waste.<br /><br />Sea Dragon--for all its size--is more easily built than submarines which need drive shafts, reactors, etc. Ships have very busy shapes--where Sea Dragon is a simple tube.<br /><br />It would be a perfect Space Elevator tether launcher--and the upper stage big enough to serve as an anchor.<br /><br />Sea Dragon may seem overlarge--but let's compare it to the 400 meter Jahre Viking, or to the massive Troll platform, or Petronus--or Kansei or Three Gorges.<br /><br />Sea Dragon is tiny compared to those massive projects.<br />We see ULCCs and ever larger cruise ships. Vessels are growing in size--but all I seem to hear these days are small minded idiots with small lvs on the brain.<br /><br /> Space will never progress as long as people think that all that needs to be up there are trash-can sized boxes with solar panels on them. No wonder space has stagnated.<br /><br />Screw that! I want infrastructure up there. Larger craft with less assembly. More off the shelf components. High value articles can be launched with CaLV with bulk propellant or station modules launched by Sea Dragon.<br /><br />We ha

 

[publiusr]

Well said.<br /><br />Interesting response to a post I made here:<br /><br />http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/forums/thread-view.asp?tid=1544&posts=5<br /><br />Local "rocket man", Bill Sprague, seems to be in agreement:<br />March 12, 2006<br />"...He recalls the 1950s and '60s, when jet airplanes and then NASA's Mercury and Apollo programs inspired him to become an aerospace engineer. But he also believes that the national space agency has outlived much of its usefulness and should confine itself to research, giving private companies wider latitude to perform the actual missions in space..." NorthCounty]http://nctimes.com/articles/2006/03/12/business/news/20_27_233_10_06.txt]NorthCounty Times<br /><br />http://www.thespacereview.com/article/808/1

 

[jwsmith]

space_dreamer writes: There are two problems with the sea Dragon concept <br /><br /> />>Firstly: There are no 500ton pay loads needing to be launched, <<<br /><br />If I have my way there soon will be. I may be a bigger space dreamer than you are. I have been at it for 47 years and have been studying as much as I can to make it happen. Finally, in the last 3 years I have a design that I trust that will let me live many years on Mars without resupply. One module will weigh 500 to 550 tons. <br />We will use at least 8 of these every two years and they will be for sale to anyone who can afford them. <<<br /><br /> />> If say 20years down the line NASA has a 500ton Son of Sky lab station to be launched, would they want to launch it in such a way? A 500 ton module would be such a massive investment I don’t think they would risk it. <<<br /><br />True! As for us we would like to have a shuttle C configuration with 4 SRB's and one ET. <br /><br /> />>500tons of fuel maybe but then 4 SDHLVs could do the job just as well, if the SDHLV flight rate was 6 launches per the cost would only be $800 mil per launch. <<<br /><br />What ever it takes as long as it is private enterprize and we can afford it. <br /><br /> />>Secondly: This is the show stopper! <br /><br />Launching the massive Sea Dragon (36 million kgf thrust) would create, huge sound waves and shock waves which would travel thousands of miles through the water. All whales, dolphins and most other sea life with in a thousand mile radius would be killed! <<<br /><br />You are right, A Show Stopper. From what we have learned in the last 40 years it would not be worth the cost. <br /><br />Visit our web site for more information. Http://www.1000Planets.com <br /><br />*** John Wayne Smith, 2006 Libertarian Candidate for Governor of Florida*** <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font size="2">John Wayne Smith, CEO</font></p><p><font size="2">1000 Planets, Inc</font></p><p><font size="2">Http://www.1000Planets.com</font></p><p><font size="2">203 W.Magnolia St.</font></p><p><font size="2">Leesbutg Florida 34748</font></p><p><font size="2">Ph: 352 787 5550</font></p><p><font size="2">email jwsmith42000@aol.com</font></p> </div>

 

[pmn1]

As far as i know, designs that would use a launch direct from the sea are a single 'stack', could you launch direct from the sea using a central core with boosters attached? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[qso1]

If you are referring to single stack as a rocket that does not stage, this would make it an SSTO which we haven't even achieved launching from land with much smaller rockets.<br /><br />Such a stack could of course be clustered (Boosters added). <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><strong>My borrowed quote for the time being:</strong></p><p><em>There are three kinds of people in life. Those who make it happen, those who watch it happen...and those who do not know what happened.</em></p> </div>

 

[pmn1]

<font color="yellow">If you are referring to single stack as a rocket that does not stage, this would make it an SSTO which we haven't even achieved launching from land with much smaller rockets. </font><br /><br />ahh, i was thinking along the lines of a single core as with say Sea Dragon and many oters now rather than SSTO but couldn't think how to describe it.<br /><br />I was wondering if the prescence of the water would cause problems for launch if you had a central core with boosters.<br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[qso1]

I'm sure there would be some kind of problem but I'm also sure it could be overcome. I think of water as an asset with any launch vehicle. Where sea based is concerned , you don't have to develop sound suppresion systems at ground level or below the LV. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><strong>My borrowed quote for the time being:</strong></p><p><em>There are three kinds of people in life. Those who make it happen, those who watch it happen...and those who do not know what happened.</em></p> </div>

 

[publiusr]

It is best not to fool with strap-ons--just build a wide core. Sea Dragon due to its rugged simplicity--may wind up being cheaper than many rockets today. We just need a friendly shipyard hurting for work.<br /><br />I'm sure there are enough of those. Sea Dragon would be easier to build than a ship.

 

[mlorrey]

Yeah, most US shipyards are hurting, those that are still in operation. Most shipbuilding has moved to asia (Korea, China, Taiwan, etc), while most ship scrapping has moved to India.

 

[qso1]

Sea Dragons rugged simplicity has never been proven. All grandiose projects start by first telling how cheap they are going to be. They just about have to because nobody outside space flight supporters are going to want to hear how expensive a rocket might actually be. Space flight supporters understand the realities imposed by present day chemical rockets, materials, and construction techniques.<br /><br />Any rocket already has a certain degree of ruggedness built in for at least two reasons:<br /><br />One is launch stresses. The other is the engineering tolerances demanded by NASA which relates to launch stresses. If a part is engineered, lets say a bolt for example. This bolt must be torqued to 100 pounds plus or minus 5 pounds. The actual bolt strength could handle being torqued to 150 pounds. It may shorten the useful life of the bolt from 20 years to 15 but if the bolt is used as a fastener on some first stage part. Its operational life will be inside 5 minutes. The bolt itself is cheap to make but to get if flight certified and tested by engineering personnell, thats when things get costly.<br /><br />In short, parts used in all launch vehicles is and will always be over engineered to a degree. As for boat yards. One of them builds a boat built almost to spacecraft specs. The boat is the Trident submarine which is built to spacecraft specs in many areas. This boat is built by shipyards and by shipyard workers. It is designed and engineered by highly paid and skilled engineers and designers as might be found at a NASA contractor. Indeed, the shipyard is a DOD contractor while building Trident.<br /><br />Tridents cost approximately a billion a peice. Their only advantage over a rocket is that they are reuseable and that is only because of the fact that they are operated here on Earth. Even with all that, when NASA or DOD pays for a rocket, boat, or whatever. They pay not so much for hardware, they pay for the brains to design and develop that hardware. Also because <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><strong>My borrowed quote for the time being:</strong></p><p><em>There are three kinds of people in life. Those who make it happen, those who watch it happen...and those who do not know what happened.</em></p> </div>

 

[mlorrey]

This is exactly what I talk about with NASA's analysis paralysis. Private industry uses fasteners like this every day (and many other products off the shelf engineered to specific standards).<br /><br />Claims that things need to be "space rated" is crap. Its an excuse to bloat your engineering department. Its a jobs program. NASA was really grown in the 60's in order to develop the ICBM engineers version of the Reserves or National Guard.<br /><br />Parts are built to standards: ANSI standards, ISA standards, IEEE standards, etc.<br /><br />The Trident sub is not the only tightly engineered sub. Los Angeles class subs are of similar construction. They were built by a number of shipyards (including Portsmouth).<br /><br />"The only way you'll get Sea Dragon is if you get payloads to size"<br /><br />Its one of those chicken/egg excuses. Large payloads won't appear until you get launch costs down, launch costs won't drop until you build Sea Dragon. Sea Dragon won't get built until you get large payloads.<br /><br />The launcher is the key. Without an affordable big launcher, there is no incentive to build big payloads. Big launchers can always launch multiple manifests of many smaller satellites until big payloads come along. Big payloads cannot launch themselves.<br /><br />Super cargo ships were not developed out of a need to ship huge cargo items: container ships all ship the same size containers, no matter how big or little the ship. Super cargo ships were built to attain low cost per lb of cargo efficiencies of scale, for the same size items smaller ships ship. So the payload excuse doesn't wash, it doesn't realistically reflect the history of the shipping industry.<br />

 

[CalliArcale]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>The boat is the Trident submarine which is built to spacecraft specs in many areas. This boat is built by shipyards and by shipyard workers. It is designed and engineered by highly paid and skilled engineers and designers as might be found at a NASA contractor. Indeed, the shipyard is a DOD contractor while building Trident.<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br />Not to digress too much, but Trident is actually a submarine-launched rocket. It replaced the Polaris. Tridents were intended for nuclear first strike capability. They are launched by nuclear-powered submarines which loiter deep below the sea where they are nearly impossible to detect and therefore neutralize. A submarine which carries ballistic missiles is called a "boomer". (They can also launch other vehicles; while boomers have never been used in war to launch ballistic missiles, they *have* been used to launch Tomahawk cruise missiles.) There are many boomers, but the most famous are the Ohio class. These, like all nuclear submarines in America, are built by Electric Boat, which specializes in this work. It is now owned by General Dynamics, one of the major defense contractors in this country. General Dynamics has become the premier supplier of ships to the Navy; they also own Bath Iron Works, which builds (among other things) nuclear-powered aircraft carriers. If you want something expensive, that's it; it'll put a boomer to shame for sheer cost.<br /><br /><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>They pay not so much for hardware, they pay for the brains to design and develop that hardware. Also because NASA/DOD are government entities, they are not as concerned since they work with taxpayer dollars. A line in the movie "Contact" says it all...why by one when you can get two for twice the price". Or my own line...the government has found a one for the price of seven sale.<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br />Yes, they are paying for the <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><font color="#666699"><em>"People assume that time is a strict progression of cause to effect, but actually from a non-linear, non-subjective viewpoint it's more like a big ball of wibbly wobbly . . . timey wimey . . . stuff."</em>  -- The Tenth Doctor, "Blink"</font></p> </div>

 

[ve7rkt]

Los Angeles class are the most well known <i>attack/escort</i> subs, not boomers. Los Angeles are nuclear powered but not nuclear armed. Not normally, anyhow... I don't know if there's anything special that prevents launching a special payload Tomahawk from a launcher set up for plain old just-goes-boom Tomahawks.<br /><br />Wikipedia claims that the 14 Ohio-class SSBN's loaded with Trident missiles are sometimes called Trident submarines to distinguish them from the other 4 Ohio-class SSGN's that have had their Trident tubes replaced with vertical launch systems for Tomahawks.

 

[CalliArcale]

Sorry, yes, you are correct. I'll fix that. (Brain not working yesterday, going off memory. Should've looked it up.) <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><font color="#666699"><em>"People assume that time is a strict progression of cause to effect, but actually from a non-linear, non-subjective viewpoint it's more like a big ball of wibbly wobbly . . . timey wimey . . . stuff."</em>  -- The Tenth Doctor, "Blink"</font></p> </div>

 

[publiusr]

As long as Sea Dragon gets built...

 

[mlorrey]

Quite right. Tomahawk and Harpoon missiles can be launched from LA class sub torpedo tubes. Before some Ohio class subs were converted to carry the 'hawk in its missile silos, it could only launch them through their own torpedo tubes. <br /><br />However, the point is, a SeaDragon can be built just about anywhere an LA class sub was built. Portsmouth, for example, which built both LAs and Poseidon equipped subs, has drydocks capable of handling up to Ohio class vessels. Newport News, Electric Boat, and other shipyard locations around the country could all build SeaDragons.<br /><br />In fact, during the Saturn program, when 260 inch dia solid rocket motors were considered for the first stage, the casings of Aerojet's entry was almost entirely constructed by a shipyard subcontracted to Aerojet. Three half length models were built and one full length model. The half length models were all fuelled and test fired successfully. So there is a track record for shipyards building successful rocket hulls.

 

[pmn1]

<font color="yellow">container ships all ship the same size containers, no matter how big or little the ship. Super cargo ships were built to attain low cost per lb of cargo efficiencies of scale, for the same size items smaller ships ship. So the payload excuse doesn't wash, it doesn't realistically reflect the history of the shipping industry. </font><br /><br />http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/ship/container.htm<br /><br />10,000 TEU!!!! <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[pmn1]

<font color="yellow">They can also launch other vehicles; while boomers have never been used in war to launch ballistic missiles, they *have* been used to launch Tomahawk cruise missiles.) There are many boomers, but the most famous are the Ohio class.</font><br /><br />I dont think the boomer Ohios have the software in their systems to launch cruise missiles through their torpedo tubes, there is no need for them to do so, with a range of less than 2,000 miles, you are wasting the range that Trident D5 gives you.<br /><br />The cruise that Ohio's would fire will be from the 4 Ohios retired from the boomer role and moved to the SSGN role carrying cruise missiles in vertical launch tubes in the former SLBM silos (156 missiles in all 24 silos are used for Cruise). <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[mlorrey]

They did, as until there were conversions made to allow silo launch, that was the only way for the Ohio's to be used for any conventional land attack.<br /><br />There are NO Ohios carrying Tridents anymore. They've all been retired under the START treaty. Those not used for Tomahawk duty are used either as special ops mobile bases, or for oceanographic research, or are mothballed at Bangor NS.<br /><br />Before the START treaty, all Ohios were chock full of Tridents all the time, as they were the lead deterrent in the arsenal. The only way an Ohio could launch a cruise missile was through the torpedo tubes, and that was how the sublaunched version of the Tomahawk was originally built to operate.<br /><br />You are talking to a military veteran of the 80's here.

 

[mlorrey]

"container ships all ship the same size containers, no matter how big or little the ship. Super cargo ships were built to attain low cost per lb of cargo efficiencies of scale, for the same size items smaller ships ship. So the payload excuse doesn't wash, it doesn't realistically reflect the history of the shipping industry. <br /><br />http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/ship/container.htm <br /><br />10,000 TEU!!!! "<br /><br />Exactly. Its amazing how large a transport can grow when markets are allowed to freely develop.<br /><br />Now, I'd argue in the space business, that there will come standard shipping sizes. These days a single launcher can, at best, launch a TEU or FEU. These container sizes, at present, are too big for the launch industry. <br /><br />The Progress Modified M, at present, is the only exclusively cargo vessel with a significant record of use. It was designed for resupplying Salyut and Mir sized space stations, and essentially is an evolution of the Soyuz launch system. The construction of larger space habitats, starting with the Bigelow Space Hotel, is going to create a market for larger class of cargo vessels.<br /><br />Packaging sizes will likely remain limited by the diameter of station module hatches. Only when the diameters of these increase will shipping package sizes (at least for packages intended for pressurized environments) start increasing.<br /><br />This does mean, though, that there will be essentially three classes of cargo: bulk/oversize equipment (capsules, modules, structures, satellites, etc), unpressurized supplies and commodities, and pressurized supplies and commodities.<br /><br />Some will object: "you can't send diverse cargoes up, they don't all go to the same orbits". No, but most will tend to go to the same orbits. Essentially equatorial/ecliptical, ISS, and polar/sun synchronous.<br /><br />Having some place to go to, like

 

[ve7rkt]

ISPR is probably the closest thing to an existing standard container size for pressurized cargo, being the standard payload container for the ISS. Its back wall is slightly curved to fit against the wall of a certain diameter cylinder, making it less space efficient for fitting in any other size station, but aside from that, it's a nice, man-movable cargo container for payloads up to 700kg, sized to fit through CBM berthing ports.<br /><br />I forget if the current efforts towards semi-commercialized ISS resupply require moving ISPRs or not; if they do, private stations like Bigelow's might use ISPRs as well.