/sci/ - Science & Math

>why bother with scientfic experimentation

kys

>>9492665
Space Shuttle program

Get on my level

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_Rocket#UR-700

>>9492665
We won the cold war and didn't need it.

>>9492767
You've given me an original idea.
What if we put some Saturn V's around the side of a Sea Dragon? And then had the Saturn V's feed fuel into the Sea Dragon?
And then what if we put some Titan 1's outside the Saturn V's? And then had the Titan 1's feed fuel into the Saturn V's?

>>9492767
>>9493090
OR, we just put some sea dragons around some sea dragons, and have them feed fuel inward. And then we do the same for another layer, and then another layer, then another layer.

>>9492665
Salt water corrosion

>>9493163
You could launch it from a lake.

>>9493163
thats even worse dumb ass, thats the water we drink, do you work for Netstle?

>>9493163
Galvanized steel.

>>9492665
Because the government lost interest. I dig the idea of a low cost, barebones big dumb rocket but the government didn't

>>9492665
Does it make sense to put an aerospike engine on that thing?

Because the soviets won the psycho war and made the USA give up on space. Then the program was ended gracefully while filling pockets.

>>9492665
No overwhelming need to launch such large payloads to LEO, so the massive investment in developing, building, testing, and then launching the first SD was probably deemed pointless and wasteful. It's a shame because with such a massive rocket you could construct massive space stations, refueling stations, satellites, and interplanetary ships and launch them into orbit in a single go.

>The rocket would have been able to carry a payload of up to 550 tonnes (540 long tons; 610 short tons) or 550,000 kg (1,210,000 lb) into low Earth orbit. Payload costs were estimated to be between $59 to $600 per kg. TRW (Space Technology Laboratories, Inc.) conducted a program review and validated the design and its expected costs.
rest in peace you beautiful monster

>>9493142
You're hired.

>>9494065
Just propose a version of it with legs, maybe somebody will pick it up just for the chance to one-up spaceX by building a bigly rocket.

>>9492665
But I did bother with it

>>9494587

>>9494593
>>9494587
did it work

>>9494593

>>9494626
it worked flawlessly

>>9494654
it didn't work because you didn't put enough seadragons around the seadragon dude

>>9494667
gotta try that next time, at least the first stage behaved nominally after course correction

The amount of cavitation you would cause by vaporizing that much water, underwater, would be chaotically unstable. You would likely rip the main thruster apart before it even surfaced.

This isn't an ICBM we're talking about.

>>9495836
Considering TRW validated the design, I will trust them rather than a know it all faggot on 4chan

>>9495851

Validated it how, exactly?

Did they ever do any live tests?
Is there footage and data?

>>9495864
Read into it if you're interested, I'm just calling you out for being an insufferable cunt

>>9495869

Read up on it, seems to check it.

Maybe you should calm down though friendo, your anus seems to be pretty spicy just at the thought of people asking questions.

>>9494649
>>9494673
>Horizontal launch
You mad man, I'm surprised you even got it to have enough room to steer the nose up in time.

>>9493527
From a performance perspective, yes. Not necessarily from a cost perspective though. The whole point of Sea Dragon was to be as cheap, simple, and dumb as possible.

We really need to bring the concept of big dumb boosters back

>>9492665
No one needed a launcher that big

>>9493090
>>9493142
Fund both of these simultaneously.

>>9492665
Make the spaceship out of cast iron so you can BBQ pork chops in space

>>9493178
And kill all marine life

>>9493638
>>9494587
>>9494593
>>9494635
>>9494649
>>9494654
>>9494666
>>9494673
>>9494688
>>9494702
>>9494717