Aerojet-General Sea Dragon

Triton

Triton

Donald McKelvy
Senior Member
Joined
14 August 2009
Messages
9,707
Reaction score
2,525
Website
deeptowild.blogspot.com

Attachments

  • SeaDragon01.JPG
    SeaDragon01.JPG
    88.5 KB · Views: 799
  • SeaDragon02.jpg
    SeaDragon02.jpg
    42.1 KB · Views: 748
  • SeaDragon03.JPG
    SeaDragon03.JPG
    162.3 KB · Views: 722
  • sEADRAGON04.JPG
    sEADRAGON04.JPG
    133.8 KB · Views: 696
  • Seadragon05.JPG
    Seadragon05.JPG
    91.1 KB · Views: 665
Slightly off topic, but the DIRECT guys are proposing something called Leviathan, which is basically resurrecting the Sea Dragon concept, so these manufacturing concept studies are very relevant. This time around, they propose annular aerospikes rather than the monster pressure fed first stage engine and the expandable nozzle second stage engine. Testing the original Sea Dragon first stage engine would have been a real challenge, but with an annular aerospike with segmented unit combustion chambers (rather than a monolithic toroidal combustion chamber style annular aerospike) you can test a single unit segment much more cheaply. Whether the performance hit from not using that huge expandable nozzle with the second stage is countered by the second stage aerospike (in either weight, cost, or development time) is up for debate though. That expandable nozzle filling out like an old style disposable stovetop popcorn maker is a different beast compared to the work done with drop down expandable nozzles for ICBM"s (which really were two piece telescopic nozzles).
 
ouroboros said:
This time around, they propose annular aerospikes rather than the monster pressure fed first stage engine and the expandable nozzle second stage engine. Testing the original Sea Dragon first stage engine would have been a real challenge, but with an annular aerospike with segmented unit combustion chambers (rather than a monolithic toroidal combustion chamber style annular aerospike) you can test a single unit segment much more cheaply. Whether the performance hit from not using that huge expandable nozzle with the second stage is countered by the second stage aerospike (in either weight, cost, or development time) is up for debate though. That expandable nozzle filling out like an old style disposable stovetop popcorn maker is a different beast compared to the work done with drop down expandable nozzles for ICBM"s (which really were two piece telescopic nozzles).
Click to expand...

They perhaps should go with the original design, at least at first, given the ongoing problems with aerospike development.
 
ouroboros said:
Slightly off topic, but the DIRECT guys are proposing something called Leviathan, which is basically resurrecting the Sea Dragon concept, so these manufacturing concept studies are very relevant. This time around, they propose annular aerospikes rather than the monster pressure fed first stage engine and the expandable nozzle second stage engine. Testing the original Sea Dragon first stage engine would have been a real challenge, but with an annular aerospike with segmented unit combustion chambers (rather than a monolithic toroidal combustion chamber style annular aerospike) you can test a single unit segment much more cheaply. Whether the performance hit from not using that huge expandable nozzle with the second stage is countered by the second stage aerospike (in either weight, cost, or development time) is up for debate though. That expandable nozzle filling out like an old style disposable stovetop popcorn maker is a different beast compared to the work done with drop down expandable nozzles for ICBM"s (which really were two piece telescopic nozzles).
Click to expand...

http://www.directlauncher.com/
 
ouroboros said:
Slightly off topic, but the DIRECT guys are proposing something called Leviathan, which is basically resurrecting the Sea Dragon concept,
Click to expand...

Interestingly a search on the Nasaspaceflight website where Direct is heavily pushed - over 2,500 posts - doesn't bring up mention of their new LV?????
 
Given that the whole mantra of DIRECT was to spike Ares with a notional HLV design using off-the-shelf parts, it's more than a little ironic that they have now come up with an aerospike-powered launcher that represents even more of a clean sheet of paper than Ares did.

Lenin's notion of "useful idiots" comes to mind.
 
OM said:
...Typical for that bunch. One of the reasons I advise people looking for decent space forums to avoid that site like the plague.
Click to expand...

Typical response from you.

The thread was locked by request of one of the Direct group. There is a internal struggle in the group.

As for NSF, it is one of the best sites around. As for advising others, you lack credibility and have no basis to make such a statement about its "decency". You rather be ignorant of the information it provides and slander it.

The inventor of the Pegasus and a former shuttle program manager as well as some Spacex and ULA insiders find it descent to post on it.

Direct was only a fringe element and were allowed to host discussions of their concept on the site, but Direct did not influence the site.
 
some PDF

Sea Dragon Concept, Volume I: Summary, Aerojet-General Corporation, January 28, 1963
http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19880069339_1988069339.pdf
http://neverworld.net/truax/Sea_Dragon_Concept_Volume_1.pdf

Sea Dragon Concept, Volume III, Aerojet-General Corporation, February 12, 1963
http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19880069340_1988069340.pdf
http://neverworld.net/truax/Sea_Dragon_Concept_Volume_3.pdf

usefull links
http://neverworld.net/truax/
 
I think some aspects of it are still classified so that's why you can't get that last part.

Bob Clark
 
RGClark said:
I think some aspects of it are still classified so that's why you can't get that last part.

Bob Clark
Click to expand...

Now that's an interesting thought......what could be classified about a BDB using pressure fed engines?
 
PMN1 said:
RGClark said:
I think some aspects of it are still classified so that's why you can't get that last part.

Bob Clark
Click to expand...

Now that's an interesting thought......what could be classified about a BDB using pressure fed engines?
Click to expand...

Maybe that if they released it the public might realize "hey, we really don't need to be throwing Swiss watches into the Atlantic"?
 
PMN1 said:
RGClark said:
I think some aspects of it are still classified so that's why you can't get that last part.

Bob Clark
Click to expand...

Now that's an interesting thought......what could be classified about a BDB using pressure fed engines?
Click to expand...
May not be classified, just restricted by ITAR. Technical information on how to build a big, powerful rocket simply and inexpensively sounds like just the thing that the US Government would rather not have widely promulgated.
 
RLBH said:
PMN1 said:
RGClark said:
I think some aspects of it are still classified so that's why you can't get that last part.

Bob Clark
Click to expand...

Now that's an interesting thought......what could be classified about a BDB using pressure fed engines?
Click to expand...
May not be classified, just restricted by ITAR. Technical information on how to build a big, powerful rocket simply and inexpensively sounds like just the thing that the US Government would rather not have widely promulgated.
Click to expand...

And ITAR rules are so amorphous and vague and badly-interpreted that it could turn out that there is NOTHING sensitive in there, but somebody thinks there might be and so they don't release it.

Heck, about 18 months ago I was in a briefing about future planetary exploration spacecraft concepts and somebody was showing some PowerPoint slides about a balloon for exploring Titan. Nothing exotic about this at all--it's essentially a hot-air balloon with the heat provided by an RTG (plutonium battery). But somebody noted that one of the slides had a dimension for the balloon (about 40 feet in diameter) and suggested in all seriousness that it was probably protected by ITAR. (Easy to fix: the guy opened his PP file and deleted the dimension).

Yeah, we have to keep the North Koreans from building hot-air ballons for Titan.
 
Had a small picture of a foam, no detail, mockup slip out into the wild and the $hit hit the fan. Never mind that high res screen shots of the 3D model and video have been publicly released. I've heard of things as simple as Magpul magazines being ITAR restricted- when anybody can walk into a gun shop anywhere in the US and buy them right off the shelf no questions asked.
 
RGClark said:
I think some aspects of it are still classified so that's why you can't get that last part.
Click to expand...

NTRS can only release what they actually *have.* It could be that they simply don't have a copy of Volume II to scan and release. Or it got lost in the bureaucracy.
 
Excellent job. I suspended my disbelief in ten-seconds. You sold the concept!

David
 
Impressive video. The Apollo CM looks amusingly tiny perched atop that monster.
 
Really impressive. We should not forget to thank to maker of this video: Hazegrayart. His videos are just amazing (please look into his YouTube-Channel!) B)
 
Ok, a stupid question, but one that's been bothering me ever since I learned of the Sea Dragon.
If the Sea Dragon is floating in the ocean, filled with cryogenic propellants, why doesn't it turn into a giant, floating ice cube? After all, we've all seen pictures and videos of Saturns and Atlases covered in ice before and during launch . . .

cheers,
Robin.
 
robunos said:
Ok, a stupid question, but one that's been bothering me ever since I learned of the Sea Dragon.
If the Sea Dragon is floating in the ocean, filled with cryogenic propellants, why doesn't it turn into a giant, floating ice cube? After all, we've all seen pictures and videos of Saturns and Atlases covered in ice before and during launch . . .

cheers,
Robin.
Click to expand...

there will be a ice sheet on Sea Dragon, but once that Monster take off, it will rain pieces of ice down into ocean

Orionblamblam said:
Nice video, but some odd changes were made from the actual Aerojet design.
Click to expand...

I Notice that too, i wonder what for documentation use Hazegrayart to render this Sea Dragon
 
Yeah the video author made some changes to the design. Still, the underwater ignition is awesome. Looks as if a tactical nuke exploded underwater :eek:
 
Combustion instabilies would be the main difficulty. Also recovery, at least the way it was planned back then. Humongous parachutes and a drop in the ocean shall work.
 

From the comments:
Michael Davis 1 year ago
Back in the 80s. I remember reading an article in Omni about the development on a one megabit floppy disc. The next month, letters to the editor were filled with derisive comments. To the effect of no one ever needing that much room. If the dragon would have been built. Odds are that uses would have been found. Thank you for the interesting video...Michael
Click to expand...
 
The difference being that data storage is an issue that can be address by a vast number of customers, from government agencies to private schmoes. A giant rocket? Approximately *one* customer, the US Government. And if they don;t have payloads for the giant rocket... shrug.
 
Given the issues there are now with noise pollution and sea life, how bad woukd the noise from a Sea Dragon be?
 
PMN1 said:
Given the issues there are now with noise pollution and sea life, how bad woukd the noise from a Sea Dragon be?
Click to expand...
According to Aerojet document roughly 150 db at a distance of between 10 to 15 miles from vehicle for one minute during launch. Obviously that's a LOT of noise, (probably past 11 on the Spinal Tap amp) if you happen to be standing any closer at launch.
 
Last edited:

Similar threads

Please donate to support the forum.

Back
Top Bottom