Timeline for Advantages of launching very large rocket while submerged, buoyant, in a body of water
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
28 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Feb 6, 2022 at 0:43 | comment | added | Basil Bourque | @Mazura I added the show details by using your suggested spoiler tag. Thank you. | |
| Feb 6, 2022 at 0:39 | history | edited | Basil Bourque | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 340 characters in body
|
| Sep 17, 2020 at 0:22 | history | edited | Organic Marble |
edited tags
|
|
| Jan 18, 2020 at 0:36 | comment | added | Mazura | What's the name of the show? Use '>!' (a spoiler paragraph) | |
| Jan 18, 2020 at 0:32 | comment | added | Mazura | @Heopps - the only reason to launch from (a likely to be, surfaced submarine) is to easily achieve orbit at an inclination not offered by any of your territory that you're authorized to build and launch ICBMs from. | |
| Jan 17, 2020 at 4:51 | comment | added | user3757614 | Sea-based launches have also been proposed for cannon-based approaches. Basically, you can have a really long barrel without a massive support structure, thus reducing G-forces. | |
| Jan 17, 2020 at 1:31 | comment | added | Russell Borogove | As I've noted in the answer to a related question, I think "one of the primary advantages of sea based development testing is that it permits early experimental evaluation of combustion stability on a full scale basis without an exorbitant outlay for facilities" translates to "if we're gonna blow one up, let's blow it up in the middle of the ocean". | |
| Jan 16, 2020 at 22:32 | comment | added | Organic Marble | That said, in discussions about Sea Dragon, I've always wondered how in the hell would you test that engine | |
| Jan 16, 2020 at 22:29 | comment | added | Organic Marble | @leftaroundabout um, no to "Apparently, engineers and reviewers didn't much think about such modes yet before Apollo " Read up on combustion instability problems with the Atlas. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SM-65D_Atlas | |
| Jan 16, 2020 at 21:27 | comment | added | Russell Borogove | Aerojet had already been dealing with pogo issues on the Titan II for some years by this time; they certainly wouldn't have been naïve on that score. (2/2) | |
| Jan 16, 2020 at 21:26 | comment | added | Russell Borogove | They did consider combustion stability; Aerojet seemed to be of the opinion that scaling engines up to that size would get them back to a stable realm: "an analysis on the basis of sensitive time lag theory indicates that the Sea Dragon thrust chamber will operate well outside the region of combustion instability. One of the primary advantages of sea based development testing is That it permits early experimental evaluation of combustion stability on a full scale basis without an exorbitant outlay for facilities." (1/2) | |
| Jan 16, 2020 at 18:00 | history | tweeted | twitter.com/StackSpaceExp/status/1217869122018643971 | ||
| Jan 16, 2020 at 17:46 | comment | added | leftaroundabout | @RussellBorogove I haven't read that review. But what I find most hilarious about Sea Dragon is the pressure-fed engine. It's the typical “why don't we just...” idea that sounds good if you assume everything behaves perfectly according to the equations by which you designed it, but breaks down horribly if real-world effects you didn't design in come into play. That engine would have massively unstable oscillation modes. Apparently, engineers and reviewers didn't much think about such modes yet before Apollo (which was plagued by oscillations even though it used smaller and pump-fed engines). | |
| Jan 16, 2020 at 17:23 | comment | added | Russell Borogove | @leftaroundabout What naïveté in particular did TRW’s review of the Sea Dragon proposal overlook? | |
| Jan 16, 2020 at 14:35 | comment | added | leftaroundabout | Sea Dragon is an insane and utterly naïve design. There's no chance this would have actually worked as Truax intended. For a properly conceived sea-launched rocket, see en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zenit-3SL. | |
| Jan 16, 2020 at 13:36 | history | edited | Machavity |
edited tags
|
|
| Jan 16, 2020 at 5:28 | answer | added | nick012000 | timeline score: 3 | |
| Jan 16, 2020 at 0:26 | history | edited | Basil Bourque | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 95 characters in body
|
| Jan 16, 2020 at 0:19 | vote | accept | Basil Bourque | ||
| Jan 16, 2020 at 0:16 | history | edited | Basil Bourque | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
edited title
|
| Jan 15, 2020 at 22:50 | answer | added | Bob Jacobsen | timeline score: 9 | |
| Jan 15, 2020 at 22:19 | comment | added | Organic Marble | 284 pages of Sea Dragon coolness here: neverworld.net/truax/Sea_Dragon_Concept_Volume_1.pdf | |
| Jan 15, 2020 at 22:11 | history | edited | Vikki | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
Fixing spelling.
|
| Jan 15, 2020 at 17:04 | history | became hot network question | |||
| Jan 15, 2020 at 9:39 | answer | added | GremlinWranger | timeline score: 38 | |
| Jan 15, 2020 at 9:29 | answer | added | Slarty | timeline score: 9 | |
| Jan 15, 2020 at 8:21 | comment | added | Heopps | Interesting that small space satellites have been launched by submarines' ballistic missiles: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Submarine-launched_satellite. | |
| Jan 15, 2020 at 7:58 | history | asked | Basil Bourque | CC BY-SA 4.0 |