Talk:Sea Dragon (rocket)

Plagiarism

Much of this article appears to be directly lifted from here. --DOHC Holiday (talk) 16:46, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm not convinced that this is copyvio. You need to be more specific on which sections you feel were copied. Cheers.--Burzum (talk) 20:35, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

It's not a copyvio from Astronautix at all - source references include there, the NASA reports, the Aerospace Projects Review article from which the image scans were borrowed (with permission of Scott Lowther), etc. But the text seems all fine - it's original descriptions based on the sources. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 23:37, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Design philosophy

One thing that could be expanded on is the philosophy behind building a large rocket like the Sea Dragon: that something like 98% of the cost in developing a rocket lies in its complexity and component count and that therefore large rockets are little, if any, more expensive to build than small rockets of the same order of design complexity, yet are capable of lifting much larger payloads. In other words Sea Dragon is the archetypal big dumb booster and proud of it. -- Derek Ross | Talk 01:29, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, i've just been bold and stated that it would have been a BDB.ospalh (talk) 13:42, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Nitrogen, Methane, Oxygen

On first reading of the NASA study, i gather that at least at one time a pressurisation system using Methane (RP-1) and "autogenous" Oxygen (LOX) was planned. I guess i'll have to read it again more carefully. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ospalh (talk • contribs) 13:41, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Astronautica does say nitrogen, but the NASA article/book, which has CH₄, O₂ is so detailed that i tend to belief that rather than the Astronautica article.ospalh (talk) 14:36, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

RP-1 is kerosene not methane -- 65.94.169.56 (talk) 06:20, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

Ospalh wasn't talking about the fuel but about the pressurization system, which isn't nitrogen for the main engines. In the Aerojet study RP-1 is pressurized using methane and LOX pressurization is autogenous (from gaseous oxygen). --Daydreamers (talk) 21:46, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

Any estimates for fuelled and empty mass ?

Can we add Any estimates for fuelled and empty mass ? - Rod57 (talk) 11:54, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

[1] says 18,000 tonnes fuelled. Is that considered unreliable ? - Rod57 (talk) 12:10, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

Can we say more on recovery and reuse

Article mentions passive recovery and refurbishment, but is not clear how recovery would be done for first stage (parachutes ? how big & many?), or how it would work for 2nd stage (any heatshield, on top or bottom?). - Rod57 (talk) 10:04, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

Vol 1 of the LRP 297 (NASA-CR-52817) talks of inflatable aerodynamic decelerator ('flare'), 300 ft diam, for the first stage, to enter sea, nose cone first at 300 ft/sec. Some ablative coatings. (rejects parachutes: 45 ft supersonic drogue, then 2,700 ft diameter single main parachute (says there isn't time for parachute deployment)).

For 2nd stage: a 240 ft diameter 'flare' is proposed, made of heat resistant Rene 41 mesh with ablative coatings. Strengthened nose cone to enter sea first. - Rod57 (talk) 10:41, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

Vol III talks about recovering the first stage, and using it with a new 2nd stage.

Configuration #135 has recoverable first stage. Config #136 has both stages recoverable. Config #134 expends both stages. - Rod57 (talk) 12:16, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

Infobox

The infobox is an absolute state right now I have to say, needs tending to but I have no idea about the data (or how to deal with infoboxes honestly) 138.38.168.250 (talk) 19:16, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

Thrust and specific Impulse

What does "kgv" stand for? Also the Specific Impulse is missing its unit. -- TheFibonacciEffect (talk) 16:02, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

Estimated Environmental Impact

Was this ever done? I know Offshore Oil Exploration using Seismic Sources has a major impact on marine life (*CiTaTioN NeEdEd and whatnot, but it is damn loud, and the sound travels far), and there is regular discourse on this.

My main question would be:

What is the impact of all this sound/rocket exhaust going into a body of water? Both for this, and for the proposed Offshore Launch of Starship i feel this aspect of the vehicles needs to be explored + discussed more.

Eric Lotze (talk) 20:32, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

Khoa học

Vũ trụ 2402:800:6139:D3BA:68A8:2F49:B4F5:58DF (talk) 12:14, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

y e s . 50.75.39.166 (talk) 20:49, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

Launch Abort System

In For All Mankind, the LAS is not shown on Sea Dragon, contrary to the concept. Should we add a note or something? 2601:246:900:34B0:7031:CE68:4182:18B4 (talk) 17:01, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

Yes, i think that'd be a good idea. 50.75.39.166 (talk) 20:50, 18 January 2023 (UTC)