/sci/ - Science & Math

>>2836821
Sea dragon was basically a "what-if" idea. None of the main and most important parts of the vehicle had been developed, or were close to being developed, when it was brainstormed. Look at the engine power and size requirements, for example. No one took it seriously, because it was not a serious proposition at the time.
The cost estimates for kg-orbit are also flawed. Seriously flawed. Space-x can do $1000 per kg, proven. Sea dragon claimed $50-600. Claimed. And that's without development costs, the permanent use of a fucking aircraft carrier or floating nuke plant and recovery and refurbishment facilities, and ignoring the fact that it would require at least a decade of development. It can be done in theory, but theory and reality have a habit of not matching up. Claiming that a sea dragon program would be cheap is nonsense. It would cost an enormous amount. Normal rockets cost an enormous amount, so why people think that a "reusable" rocket designed to be a part time ship and requiring a nuclear reactor to fuel would be cheap is a mystery to me.

That's not to say it couldn't be done. It could. But the reality is that it is probably cheaper, easier and more effective to go with programs like space-x than sea dragon.