|This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Sea Dragon (rocket) article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
|This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.|
|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.
Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. | Reporting errors
- 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)
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 -- 220.127.116.11 (talk) 06:20, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
Any estimates for fuelled and empty mass ?
-  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)
Thrust and specific Impulse
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.