Interesting point, big dumb boosters fit with their ethos.I am surprised Russia didn't look at this--space Rubles go to Russian shipyards--not Kazakhs
ITAR: International Traffic in Arms Regulations.I've heard of things as simple as Magpul magazines being ITAR restricted- when anybody can walk into a gun shop anywhere in the US and buy them right off the shelf no questions asked.
I suspect it's insufficiently mathematically elegant.Interesting point, big dumb boosters fit with their ethos.
It makes an appearance in For All Mankind.Holy moly, just come across Sea Dragon, that's just awesome. I know this isn't a post that moves anything along but what a monster.
The technology is likely related in part to SSBN missile launching systems.Now that's an interesting thought......what could be classified about a BDB using pressure fed engines?
He only ran the Army's program until 1960 and NASA's from 1960 to 1970. He had nothing to do with the Air Force or Navy's. And two of the rockets in the background, he had nothing to do with*.injecting a bit of humor here, this is what happens when you hire a bunch of ex-Nazi scientists to run your missile program...
Bonus points: Identify all the rockets in the background...
Nothing was related to them. Liquid propellant and not tube launched.The technology is likely related in part to SSBN missile launching systems.
It could be stuff related to making things watertight, or any of a myriad of other small items.Nothing was related to them. Liquid propellant and not tube launched.
Their large pump-fed engines were too good to even begin considering liquid pressure-fed boosters.I am surprised Russia didn't look at this--space Rubles go to Russian shipyards--not Kazakhs
they didn't really have to be watertight. the ejection gases kept the water away. There is no linkage between SLBM and Seadragon.It could be stuff related to making things watertight, or any of a myriad of other small items.
The USAF also had Titan II, Thor, Minuteman, Navaho, etcThe Atlas had balloon tank (and it's Centaurs) that Von Braun didn't care for. That and Titans I consider USAF, the rest Army
Hardly. He wasn't a true navy ma. He only had two years of sea duty. For most of his career, he dealt with rockets.Truax was a Navy man, so the idea of using maranging steel and shipyards is understandable.
I am surprised Russia didn't look at this--space Rubles go to Russian shipyards--not Kazakhs
The USAF also had Titan II, Thor, Minuteman, Navaho, etc
Hardly. He wasn't a true navy ma. He only had two years of sea duty. For most of his career, he dealt with rockets.
Atlas and Titan II were USAF vehicles. USAF managed and operated.Yes but the line up is NASA launch vehicles so only the Titan II gets to play
Most of them are manned vehicles but IIRC there should be a "Thor" further to the left next to that "Juno/Jupiter" LV.
Because you threw in Atlas V and Truax, I did not realize you were talking about the photo post. Quote post you are referring to and don't assume people understand your line of thinking.The Atlas had balloon tank (and it's Centaurs) that Von Braun didn't care for. That and Titans I consider USAF, the rest Army
Atlas V structurally is closer to Titan.
Truax was a Navy man, so the idea of using maranging steel and shipyards is understandable.
The biggest not gonna work on the Sea Dragon is the use of pressurized fuel and oxidizer tanks to push the fuel into the engine. That wasn't going to work. The historical problems with such a system is why everybody went to turbopumps to pull the fuel and oxidizer at a constant rate from their tanks and push it at a constant rate into the engine.
Not really given the thing's size and mass.Wouldn't it have been easier to build a launch pad with a huge pond and launch the missile from that than
To make the rocket manufacture as cheap as possible, Truax planned to build its body not from aluminum but from 8 mm steel sheets, which ultimately made the production no more difficult than building a submarine. Thanks to this, the carrier could be assembled at shipyards and then towed to the launch site directly on the water. The shipbuilding company Todd Shipyards was ready to take on the construction.
The water would suppress the sound of the engine as well as take away the need of a new launch complex and support structures. Such a large rocket would not be able to launch from Cape Canaveral, as Launch Complex 39 at the Kennedy Space Center would later be built to support Saturn V launches.
There was some interest at NASA and Todd Shipyards but the project never made it past the conceptual stage. Todd Shipyards concluded that construction on such a vehicle was within their capabilities and their 8 millimeter thick maraging steel, a type of steel that possesses superior strength and toughness. NASA sent the designs to TRW, an aerospace corporation, for review and it fully confirmed Aerojet's expected costs and engineering for Sea Dragon. Aerojet was considering purchasing Sudden Ranch, a stretch of coastline between Santa Barbara and Vandenberg Air Force Base in California, as a launch site for their rocket. This was the only site on the continental United States that could launch directly into polar orbit without flying over populated areas.
Atlas and Titan II were USAF vehicles. USAF managed and operated.
And he had nothing to do with Thor
Cape Canaveral first launch was in 1950. By 1960, as shown in the attached diagram, was already up to pad 34.When this thing was proposed in early 1960s our much loved Cape Canaveral launch complex had not yet been built.
And there is that thing about sound waves ...
A lot of the early stuff was related to SAM development like BOMARC and programs shifted from the Holloman Missile Development Test Center in New Mexico.Cape Canaveral first launch was in 1950. By 1960, as shown in the attached diagram, was already up to pad 34.
Most of the "early stuff" was cruise missiles.A lot of the early stuff was related to SAM development like BOMARC and programs shifted from the Holloman Missile Development Test Center in New Mexico.
Pads 1 to 4 were all related to this.
Lark was actually by that time CTV-N-9 and 10 and used for development of missile guidance systems, particularly flight controls. Launches were done from pad 3.Most of the "early stuff" was cruise missiles.
BOMARC was the only SAM tested at the Cape and it was at Pad 4. Pad 3 was for Bumper. Others were Redstone, X-17, Polaris FTV, Matador. Lark was use to gain experience on missile testing.
Pads 1 & 2 were for Snark and Matador.
The big infrastructure stuff for launching Saturn 5 rockets is what I meant, as the quoted material notes.Cape Canaveral first launch was in 1950. By 1960, as shown in the attached diagram, was already up to pad 34.
That was Merritt Island.The big infrastructure stuff for launching Saturn 5 rockets is what I meant, as the quoted material notes.
"Most"? No.Lark was actually by that time CTV-N-9 and 10 and used for development of missile guidance systems, particularly flight controls. Launches were done from pad 3.
But most came from Holloman which was then shutdown as a missile development center.
Probably because it was really big and really expensive. Engineers love the former and bureaucrats and managers love the latter...What's exactly the story for why Sea Dragon became so popular as a concept?
It was suppose to make launch cheaperProbably because it was really big and really expensive. Engineers love the former and bureaucrats and managers love the latter...
Maybe than an equivalent sized vehicle launching from land, but it was going to be really expensive to get to fruition and in many ways, to build.It was suppose to make launch cheaper
What's exactly the story for why Sea Dragon became so popular as a concept?