/sci/ - Science & Math

[Colonel Coffee Mug !phJ7yIcs.Q No.2301730]

Pic related. That's a Sea Dragon rocket.

In the 1960's NASA was researching into heavy-lifters, to carry huge space stations into orbit, back then when they had plans to send people to Mars by 1980, Jupiter by 1990, and a relativistic mission just in time for 2001. Back then.

This baby could carry 550 tonnes to Low Earth Orbit while the Shuttle can carry 25. The cost per kilogram was six hundred bucks. For the shuttle that's ten thousand. Imagine going to space for ten thousand dollars, not just an up-and-down trip, but a trip to an orbital: Because 550 tonnes is more than enough too carry two space stations, and some room for a few stowaways to piggyback.

The Sea Dragon rocket was cancelled by the time NASA's Future Projects branch was cancelled by the Nixon Administration: NASA put men on the Moon, only to find the assembly lines being scrapped the moment they returned.

[Colonel Coffee Mug !phJ7yIcs.Q No.2301757]

>>2301730

As an addendum: The rocket's plume was so hot it had to take off from the sea. This also reduces the need for a launch pad, which greatly reduces the rocket's cost.

It's a Big Dumb Booster: A scaled up and simplified rocket, not all that space shuttle nonsense. It's the proof that cheap access to space can be provided without a fantasy space elevator or a superconducting Lofstrom Loop.

[Scia No.2301775]

Fuck off with your unrealistic and far to expensive ideas

you wont be able to get a job at SpaceX unless you come around to reality
Free market take us to space

[Colonel Coffee Mug !phJ7yIcs.Q No.2301807]

>>2301775

>implying colonizing the Moon is reality

[Anonymous No.2301838]

>back then when they had plans to send people to Mars by 1980, Jupiter by 1990, and a relativistic mission just in time for 2001. Back then.

[Frey No.2301866]

When will we develop a better propulsion system?

[Colonel Coffee Mug !phJ7yIcs.Q No.2301869]

>>2301838

Don't believe me? Have this pic.

[Anonymous No.2301876]

>>2301730
>This baby could carry 550 tonnes to Low Earth Orbit while the Shuttle can carry 25
I'd like to point out that the Shuttle is basically a ship stuck on top of a launch vehicle. tl;dr the shuttle is part of the payload to orbit.


If you want real payload, make an Orion.

[Colonel Coffee Mug !phJ7yIcs.Q No.2301883]

>>2301876

It will never get approved because "hurr durr nuclear" and the Test Ban Treaty.

[Anonymous No.2301913]

>>2301869
Ah, diagrams...back then people believed they will have AI and jetpacks in 1960 or something. Futurism is always some optimistic... it makes me laugh.

[Anonymous No.2301916]

>implying it wasn't liberals that killed the space program

When did the Moon landing happen? during the NIXON admin.

[Anonymous No.2301918]

>>2301883
Look, it's not my fault that a nuclear device went in my abandoned salt mine and propelled my industrial facility into orbit. Look how pissed I am about that. Rargh, angry faces of anguish.

[Anonymous No.2301931]

>>2301869
Fuck my life.

[Anonymous No.2301959]

>mfw we could have had a thriving earth moon system economy by now if we didn’t get trapped in the post Apollo cargo cult and see everything as needing a state sponsored super project.

[Anonymous No.2301995]

you say it could carry so much and cost so much, but it was never built

[Anonymous No.2302054]

>>2301916
10/10 would rage again.

>>2301959
>if we didn’t get trapped in the post Apollo cargo cult and see everything as needing a state sponsored super project.

What?
Who's "we"? If some rich guy wanted to launch a private space company nothing stopped him.

[Colonel Coffee Mug !phJ7yIcs.Q No.2302140]

>>2301918

Good plan. But Orion needs more than one nuke to get into orbit.

Unless you're planning to use a Verne Gun design, ie nuclear cannon. That would be safer, but people would still rage. And you'd still need spacex rockets or something to get people into orbit since anything launched on a Verne Gun would turn to red jelly.

YOU JELLY?

[Anonymous No.2302179]

It's all because anti-gravity technology is much better and cheaper overall, and coverup using seldom launches of men in a bucket on top of primitive chemical rocket is relatively cheap.

[Anonymous No.2302222]

>>2302179
Uh... what the fuck?

[Anonymous No.2302326]

>>2301959
Funny, Sea Dragon and the Saturn V production were scrapped and we don't have a earth moon economy today.

[Anonymous No.2302345]

>>2302222
nothing...

just reminiscing when we cracked into hyperspace back in the 70's and found out light speed is slower there than here....and laughing at all the poor bastards in their garages trying to replicate it not realizing we already have it..

[Anonymous No.2302365]

>>2301775
Says the 16 year old...

[Anonymous No.2302429]

>>2302326
exactly we dumped billions into single monolithic projects that were fundamentally flawed, but were clung to because "hei NASA put a mans on da mooon!". The cost estimates on the shuttle were published in the beginning were about 1 tenth the number that was actually estimated, fraud was the plan: get things started then ask for more. Then it became how all NASA human spaceflight operated, the epic bloat isn’t the cost of space, its bureaucratic gorging and pork barrel spending. Why the fuck do you think Constellation was going to go out of the way to use Thiokol solids despite that being one of the biggest sources of problems? NASA was never going to do anything great again no mater the amount of money dumped on them.
Go fucking read up on it instead of joining in the mental masturbation.

[Anonymous No.2302453]

>>2302429
[CITATION NEEDED]

[Anonymous No.2302492]

>>2302453
read "this new ocean":
http://www.amazon.com/This-New-Ocean-Library-Paperbacks/dp/0375754857
it really gets into the underlyng realities of the space race.

[Anonymous No.2302507]

>>2302492
Thanks for the link, looks intriguing.

[Anonymous No.2302550]

shit, it might work out pretty well
have a small capsule on the top loaded with automated equipment, shit could launch and deploy materials into orbit 100% autonomously.

[Anonymous No.2302602]

Here's a better idea: re-usable SSTO space planes. The SABRE/SKYLON project under development by Reaction Engines ltd. allows for a single stage to orbit using conventional runways and a hybrid jet/rocket engine. With minor adjustments, the plane can make one round trip to LEO, come back, and after two days be ready to fly again. The aim is for the craft to be reusable up to 200 times.

Even better, it's a private company doing research under ESA grants (You're welcome for that stiffy, scia). Also, it's using its current technological abilities to develop high-speed aircraft to eventually sell.

They also have orbital station plans to be used as a basis for other craft to reach other parts of the solar system.

[Anonymous No.2302631]

>>2302507
its a good book, very analytical and though published over 10 years ago it makes currant motivations more understandable. It was a killjoy to read it though, I was stoked for the x-33/venture star program and had bought into the hype at the time, but reading this made me look over the way both NASA and LockMart actually treated it. The subsequent failure, cancellation, and heap of bullshit was heartbreakingly predictable.

[Anonymous No.2302650]

Project Orion is superior.

http://web.archive.org/web/20071022133749rn_1/www.mfbb.net/nuclearrockets/nuclearrockets-about12.htm
l
All the declassified documents.

[Colonel Coffee Mug !phJ7yIcs.Q No.2302656]

>>2302631
>>2302429

Well, NASA *did* get a man to the Moon. All it takes is political leadership and threatening everyone's jobs. The funding isn't really that much of a problem, but it would be nice to have a few extra bucks here and there.

[Colonel Coffee Mug !phJ7yIcs.Q No.2302893]

bump

[Anonymous No.2303196]

>>2302893
Rockets scale, spaceplanes don't. That's been the big problem with rockets for decades. But now we can model spaceplanes at scale to develop them. I don't know if it's sunk cost making us stick to what doesn't work or what.

I do wish the ISS used technologies to reduce the operations cost - mainly recycling water and carbon dioxide, as that requires regular restocking. Better radiation shielding (or a better understanding of low-level doses) would allow longer missions.

[Anonymous No.2304880]

>>2303196

Spaceplanes are too complicated. Rockets are simpler.