Aerojet-General Sea Dragon

[RanulfC]

Reality proves otherwise. Space Force is getting more money and roles. The Space Force is part of the JCS. The budget is more. The Army and Navy gave up their satellite control organizations. UHF/Tactical Comm is now Space Force responsibility.

As did the Air Force giving up all it's launching responsibilities and satellite command and control. Thing is Space Force essentially still has the same 'jobs' as when it was simply Space Command but had a lot of added costs and infrastructure. A good portion of which still needs to be built. Right now it's still very much dependent on legacy Space Command and Air Force infrastructure.

Space Force is too big to fail.

Ouch, ya that was probably something you didn't want to put out there as it's a jinx
Right now, other than the spot on the JCS the Space Force is more like the Marines with the Air Force as their main supporting and servicing system. That's going to take a long while to change.

Beal was before Musk and had the wrong ideas.

Some yes but considering what kind of issues and costs SpaceX would have entailed if they hadn't had Beal's infrastructure to take over...

What is the matter with copy Musk?

Because Musk has not been the best at carrying through with an idea, and is far to unfocused to be a viable example of someone to "copy" off of. Musk has his (so far) only personal hit with the Falcon 9 and THAT was a major part other people's efforts and work. Starship has been organized and developed using just about nothing from the successful Falcon 9 program and it shows. Most of the people who actually made the Falcon 9 a success no longer work for SpaceX. The consistent failures we've seen point to a broken design and development program and it's not likely to get much better in the long run. Musk is good a pitching things but he doesn't really know a lot about the things he pitches and he tends very much to over-promise and demand things that are not as viable as he wants them to be.

Randy

 

[Scott Kenny]

That isn't quite true. Submarines want to have the thinnest possible walls compatible with the external pressure applies. Rockets want to have the thinnest possible walls compatible with the internal pressure applied.

Subs still use the same style of frames as a plane or a rocket to provide most of the hull strength.

 

[T. A. Gardner]

Actually, I think the Stratolaunch plane system is the way to go. Haul the rocket to say, 50,000 feet then launch it into orbit. That cuts out like 80% of the energy and lift needed to put something in orbit from sea level.

 

[Orionblamblam]

Actually, I think the Stratolaunch plane system is the way to go. Haul the rocket to say, 50,000 feet then launch it into orbit. That cuts out like 80% of the energy and lift needed to put something in orbit from sea level.

Ahhh... no. Not even close.

50,000 feet... but you need to get to ~200 miles, or one *million* feet.

Stratolaunch is safely subsonic, but orbital velocity is about Mach 25. So if you need to go, say, 30 times faster, you need 30X30 = 900 (NINE HUNDRED) times as much energy.

Air launch is handy to get you to the launch inclination you want, and to sometimes simplify launch infrastructure. But it gets you essentially *nothing* as far as launch energy.

 

[Scott Kenny]

Ahhh... no. Not even close.

50,000 feet... but you need to get to ~200 miles, or one *million* feet.

Stratolaunch is safely subsonic, but orbital velocity is about Mach 25. So if you need to go, say, 30 times faster, you need 30X30 = 900 (NINE HUNDRED) times as much energy.

Air launch is handy to get you to the launch inclination you want, and to sometimes simplify launch infrastructure. But it gets you essentially *nothing* as far as launch energy.

Thought it saved a thousand or two m/s delta-vee?

 

[Orionblamblam]

Thought it saved a thousand or two m/s delta-vee?

500 miles per hour - a guess as to Startolaunches top speed - is a mere 224 meters per second. Some savings in drag and altitude, but not *that* much.

If you want air launch that really has an impact, your aircraft has to be hypersonic and flying incredibly high.

 

[Scott Kenny]

500 miles per hour - a guess as to Startolaunches top speed - is a mere 224 meters per second. Some savings in drag and altitude, but not *that* much.

If you want air launch that really has an impact, your aircraft has to be hypersonic and flying incredibly high.

How much drag are you getting rid of by launching at 30k+?

Archibald has done the math for his Dark Moon Rising series, on the order of 1000m/s really is right for subsonic air launch at ~30kft. Adding supersonic or hypersonic speeds and altitudes doesn't actually add that much more delta-vee than just getting 30,000ft up.

 

[Yellow Palace]

Subs still use the same style of frames as a plane or a rocket to provide most of the hull strength.

Precisely. You don't want to see what happens to an unstiffened cylinder at submarine operating depths.

Archibald has done the math for his Dark Moon Rising series, on the order of 1000m/s really is right for subsonic air launch at ~30kft. Adding supersonic or hypersonic speeds and altitudes doesn't actually add that much more delta-vee than just getting 30,000ft up.

You also don't have to get that high before you can just run a vacuum-optimised engine all the way to orbit, which gets a modest but useful efficiency gain.

 

[publiusr]

Air launch is handy to get you to the launch inclination you want, and to sometimes simplify launch infrastructure. But it gets you essentially *nothing* as far as launch energy.

No pad to blow up on, or plumes rising from for spy-sats to see. Apart from that, no advantage.

Sea Dragon, being heavily built, needed no chute?

PS…I you can lengthen cruise ships—you can build Sea Dragon

Cruise Ship-Lengthening Surgery: All The Cool Companies Are Doing It

The number of people going on cruises keeps rising year over year, with the number passengers carried increasing from just over 3.7 million in 1990 to well over 28 million in 2023. This has meant a…

hackaday.com

 

[Archibald]

How much drag are you getting rid of by launching at 30k+?

Archibald has done the math for his Dark Moon Rising series, on the order of 1000m/s really is right for subsonic air launch at ~30kft. Adding supersonic or hypersonic speeds and altitudes doesn't actually add that much more delta-vee than just getting 30,000ft up.

To be 100% honest: not me. But a) Mitchell Burnside Clapp in the 1990's and b) Marti Sarigul-Klijn the next decade. Most recent calculations, but the numbers were already there in 1963: NASA did similar calculations for B-70 dropped rocket packages (will try to find the document on my HD).

I criss-crossed four sources and the consensus seems to be
- 30 degree AoA and 50 000 feet: optimal for winged rockets
- drop at Mach 0.85, scraps 1100 m/s from 9000 m/s
- drop at Mach 2, scraps 1600 m/s from 9000 m/s
- drop at Mach 3, scraps 2000 m/s from 9000 m/s
- drop at Mach 5.5, scraps 3000 m/s from 9000 m/s
(which also parallels "airbreath to Mach 5.5 as in Skylon": I did the math for the C2 and D1 variants, and it works fine with 17 mt of payload: check this ---- 9.81*465*ln((310+17)/(53+17))+3000 = 10031 m/s )

 

[Byeman]

1. And like most of the Air Force "heavy lift" launch vehicles it was still very much a "paper design" by the time the Air Force was aiming towards flight. Hence the reason the Air Force had ARPA require ABMA to redesign the initial Saturn test article to ensure it could carry it. Then the Dynasoar was canceled and ABMA had to take metal cutters to cut down the fins that were designed and built to offset the Dynasoar's lift during launch. And the Air Force pivoted the Titan III towards MOL. Which was actually a good thing as Titan III was on the chopping block before it ever got built because the Air Force had tied it's development to the Dynasoar.
(Simply put the Titan III wasn't going to be ready to fly until the mid-to-late 60s and the Air Force needed a working booster to test Dynasoar before that. The Air Force was not happy about it but they had to agree to work with ABMA on the Saturn because it WOULD be ready)


2.The project engineers clearly stated in numerous monographs and articles that they literally scavenged parts and materials for the first Saturn flight item. Mostly because ARPA kept stopping and starting the budget over and over. (Air Force again) The H-1's were modified engines essentially similar to the basic Thor and Jupiter engine. The tanks were built using Jupiter and Redstone tanks assembly fixtures and those were used on all the Saturn 1's. The engineers were quite proud of the fact they managed to assemble and launch the initial Saturn 1 on time and under budget despite the flaky nature of that budget.


3.Well there's a good reason for that as SpaceX has not shown the supposed extreme price drop for their internal operations so that the older expendable designs are still very much competitive. (It helps of course that the government doesn't want to end up being dependent on a single company or launch vehicle)


4.Depends. The main issue as of now is they are nothing but the already existing "Space Command" without having to actually work with the Army and Navy which Space Command did. They really don't have that much of a 'job' at the moment. That's going to change, eventually.

1. wrong. Dynasoar first flight was scheduled for Jan 1966. Titan III flew 7 times by then.
2. There were no "scavenged" parts. All hardware (engines, structure and tanks) were purposed built. Just scavenged" designs.
3. that would be wrong. Falcon 9 is more than 50% cheaper than any other equivalent US launch vehicle. And cheaper than Pegasus.
4. They have a "job" and they have already taken over many of Army and Navy space tasks

also, Thor was a better launch vehicle.

 

[Byeman]

1. As did the Air Force giving up all it's launching responsibilities and satellite command and control. Thing is Space Force essentially still has the same 'jobs' as when it was simply Space Command but had a lot of added costs and infrastructure. A good portion of which still needs to be built. Right now it's still very much dependent on legacy Space Command and Air Force infrastructure.

2.Ouch, ya that was probably something you didn't want to put out there as it's a jinx
Right now, other than the spot on the JCS the Space Force is more like the Marines with the Air Force as their main supporting and servicing system. That's going to take a long while to change.

3.Some yes but considering what kind of issues and costs SpaceX would have entailed if they hadn't had Beal's infrastructure to take over...

1.??? No. Launching responsibilities and satellite command and control were part of Space Command (other than acquisition, what was there to transfer anyways?) and are still part of the Dept of the Air Force. What "added costs and infrastructure"?

2. It is going to stay that way (Space Force - Air Force relationship). No need to duplicate medical, CE, base security and support groups in Space Force.

3. Very little. SpaceX just used the land and maybe one test stand in TX. There was little applicable to Falcon.

 

[Byeman]

Subs still use the same style of frames as a plane or a rocket to provide most of the hull strength.

not really. This is a Falcon 9 and Delta tank sections.

 

[Byeman]

No pad to blow up on, or plumes rising from for spy-sats to see. Apart from that, no advantage.

Sea Dragon, being heavily built, needed no chute?

wrong on both.
satellites can see IR from launch.
It still would collapse from impact

 

[Yellow Palace]

This is a Falcon 9 and Delta tank sections.

This is a submarine pressure hull section. The structural concept is more similar to the Falcon 9 tank than either is to the Delta tank. Longitudinal framing, as seen on the Falcon 9 tank, isn't really done on submarines. But it's pretty common on surface ships, particularly commercial ships.

 

[T. A. Gardner]

Precisely. You don't want to see what happens to an unstiffened cylinder at submarine operating depths.

But we did with the Titan going down to view the Titanic.

 

[T. A. Gardner]

1.??? No. Launching responsibilities and satellite command and control were part of Space Command (other than acquisition, what was there to transfer anyways?) and are still part of the Dept of the Air Force. What "added costs and infrastructure"?

2. It is going to stay that way (Space Force - Air Force relationship). No need to duplicate medical, CE, base security and support groups in Space Force.

3. Very little. SpaceX just used the land and maybe one test stand in TX. There was little applicable to Falcon.

On number 2, today it's common for US military bases to be home to commands from various services. These are referred to as "tenant commands." So, the Air Force and say, Navy might share an air base where the Air Force is the base command and the Navy is a tenant and uses the Air Force's facilities for things like medical, security, etc.

 

[Byeman]

On number 2, today it's common for US military bases to be home to commands from various services. These are referred to as "tenant commands." So, the Air Force and say, Navy might share an air base where the Air Force is the base command and the Navy is a tenant and uses the Air Force's facilities for things like medical, security, etc.

it will be like the Navy and Marines. Space Force bases are supported by Air Force medical, CE, legal, chaplin, base security and support groups. Only "operational" positions are manned by Space Force personnel.

 

[Scott Kenny]

To be 100% honest: not me. But a) Mitchell Burnside Clapp in the 1990's and b) Marti Sarigul-Klijn the next decade. Most recent calculations, but the numbers were already there in 1963: NASA did similar calculations for B-70 dropped rocket packages (will try to find the document on my HD).

I criss-crossed four sources and the consensus seems to be
- 30 degree AoA and 50 000 feet: optimal for winged rockets
- drop at Mach 0.85, scraps 1100 m/s from 9000 m/s
- drop at Mach 2, scraps 1600 m/s from 9000 m/s
- drop at Mach 3, scraps 2000 m/s from 9000 m/s
- drop at Mach 5.5, scraps 3000 m/s from 9000 m/s
(which also parallels "airbreath to Mach 5.5 as in Skylon": I did the math for the C2 and D1 variants, and it works fine with 17 mt of payload: check this ---- 9.81*465*ln((310+17)/(53+17))+3000 = 10031 m/s )

Thank you!

not really. This is a Falcon 9 and Delta tank sections.

Yeah, Falcon 9 has those circular frames, just like a sub. Or just like a Boeing. Not too many longitudinal stringers on a sub, because the hull skin is strong enough to not need that. But a civilian ship that doesn't have 4-6" of hull thickness would have stringers in addition to ribs.

 

[Hydroman]

Actually, I think the Stratolaunch plane system is the way to go. Haul the rocket to say, 50,000 feet then launch it into orbit. That cuts out like 80% of the energy and lift needed to put something in orbit from sea level.

This was the original premise of Roc when I was involved in Scaled's Project Lofty (the beginning of the project way back in 2006) working to define all the air vehicle subsystems derived from the purchased 747-400's. Designed to launch large booster/payload systems from various operating locations. This payload looks like a large X-34 system somewhat. One problem is trying to operate Roc from other locations due to the difficulties with ground handling. Plus the other locations would require extensive runway, taxiway and hammerhead mods and upgrades in order to be able to handle this aircraft due to its size and gear configuration.

 

[RanulfC]

1. wrong. Dynasoar first flight was scheduled for Jan 1966. Titan III flew 7 times by then.

Not according to the Air Force and ARPA who both made the instructions on the needed modifications to the initial Saturn LV prior to launch. Again ABMA had to de-construct some of those modifications before the test flight.

2. There were no "scavenged" parts. All hardware (engines, structure and tanks) were purposed built. Just scavenged" designs.

Oddly the people who actually built the vehicle disagree with you as does the written and oral history. The Saturn was a "kludge" rocket that worked and worked very well.

3. that would be wrong. Falcon 9 is more than 50% cheaper than any other equivalent US launch vehicle. And cheaper than Pegasus.

I have to doubt the "50%" figure mostly because that's nowhere near what SpaceX shows and charges. Again, Vulcan/Centaur is cost effective in comparison as an expendable vehicle.

4. They have a "job" and they have already taken over many of Army and Navy space tasks

Actually they took the Army and Navy personnel for the most part as well since they didn't have the skill sets or personnel to fill the slots initially. Again, this is all the same stuff as Space Command did, just without the interservice cooperation that had.

also, Thor was a better launch vehicle.

And Jupiter was a far better missile than Thor. So what?

1.??? No. Launching responsibilities and satellite command and control were part of Space Command (other than acquisition, what was there to transfer anyways?) and are still part of the Dept of the Air Force. What "added costs and infrastructure"?

Space Force is taking over launch responsibilities and contractor coordination of the same, the Air Force will no longer support space activities per the Space Force mandate. This has already been happening with Space Force taking over the contracting operations such as with SpaceX.
Yes Space Force is a department of the Air Force just like the Marines are part of the Navy. But they are still a "separate' branch requiring their own infrastructure and systems. (Hence a new headquarters being built in Colorado to house them) They will now have their own budget (and the yearly battle thereof) and will require their own training, maintenance, command, and services programs which they currently do not have.

2. It is going to stay that way (Space Force - Air Force relationship). No need to duplicate medical, CE, base security and support groups in Space Force.

Incorrect, those duplications will still happen just like you see duplicate Marine groups on their bases. They have those separate bases already and the Air Force is tasking them with getting their own people in place as soon as possible. It's the "Space Force" not the "Space Command" which was supported and operated by the Air Force. That will no longer be the case and this was a major reason why very few people were 'happy' about having the Space Force established.

3. Very little. SpaceX just used the land and maybe one test stand in TX. There was little applicable to Falcon.

SpaceX uses the facilities left from Beal along with two test stands and one they rebuilt. Considering Falcon was assembled and tested there you've got a funny definition of "little applicable"? It saved SpaceX a lot of money according to Musk.

it will be like the Navy and Marines. Space Force bases are supported by Air Force medical, CE, legal, chaplin, base security and support groups. Only "operational" positions are manned by Space Force personnel.

Ah so the Space Force according to you won't have any bases of their own? Odd since they already have several, all of which are actually CALLED "Space Force Base/Station", that means the Space Force will be the "host unit" which means handling the base and therefore having to supply it's own people to fill in the jobs there. No they most assuredly NOT "only operations" both by design and by requirement. The Air Force will ONLY be filling those positions on bases where THEY are the hosting command. As you say it will be "just like the Marines" who have to provide all those tasks on bases THEY own. Not sure where you're getting the information from as this is all readily available.

This is the major reason no one really WANTED a "Space Force" because it's going to be very expensive initially to actually get to the point where the Space Force is actually "stood up" and operational. The command and control that Space Command did is going to be only a very small part of what the Space Force actually does and it will end up needed all the infrastructure of any other branch, including all the needed personnel and infrastructure to run and maintain there own bases. And Frankly what's needed Space Command was already doing without all the ancillary and support functions that Space Force HAS to now do.

Randy

 

[RanulfC]

This was the original premise of Roc when I was involved in Scaled's Project Lofty (the beginning of the project way back in 2006) working to define all the air vehicle subsystems derived from the purchased 747-400's. Designed to launch large booster/payload systems from various operating locations. This payload looks like a large X-34 system somewhat. One problem is trying to operate Roc from other locations due to the difficulties with ground handling. Plus the other locations would require extensive runway, taxiway and hammerhead mods and upgrades in order to be able to handle this aircraft due to its size and gear configuration.

Roc's biggest issue is the fact it's so big and has to be to loft a large enough LV to matter. It's still possible to get to orbit from a subsonic launch as was suggested with the "Black Ice" spaceplane, but what you really want is a decent speed boost like say around Mach 3-ish. Altitude in air launch isn't that much of a help. (The main three are Speed, Angle-of-Attack at release, and Altitude in that order)

Roc is never going to be anything but a subsonic launch platform so it's always going to be a pretty niche system. Alan would have been better to look at a less dedicated system such as a near-standard 747 Tanker aircraft. With some creative work you could still get an under-carry LV with a minimum of further modifications. (Probably use turbopumps instead of pressure fed )

Randy

 

[Scott Kenny]

Roc's biggest issue is the fact it's so big and has to be to loft a large enough LV to matter. It's still possible to get to orbit from a subsonic launch as was suggested with the "Black Ice" spaceplane, but what you really want is a decent speed boost like say around Mach 3-ish. Altitude in air launch isn't that much of a help. (The main three are Speed, Angle-of-Attack at release, and Altitude in that order)

Roc is never going to be anything but a subsonic launch platform so it's always going to be a pretty niche system. Alan would have been better to look at a less dedicated system such as a near-standard 747 Tanker aircraft. With some creative work you could still get an under-carry LV with a minimum of further modifications. (Probably use turbopumps instead of pressure fed )

Randy

Again, just getting up to 50kft and 0.8 mach gives you 1100m/s free delta-vee. That's basically 12% of the way to orbit. Kicking the speed up to Mach 2 only gives you 1600m/s. Mach 3 gives you 2000m/s.

Edit: Energy-to-orbit is an (expletive deleted)

 

[publiusr]

But we did with the Titan going down to view the Titanic.

Carbon fiber is great for light aircraft and maybe ROV brackets.

For manned submersibles?
You can keep them.

 

[Archibald]

Again, just getting up to 50kft and 0.8 mach gives you 1100m/s free delta-vee. That's basically 12% of the way to orbit. Kicking the speed up to Mach 2 only gives you 1600m/s. Mach 3 gives you 2000m/s.

Except it doesn't work that way. Your delta-v percentages are correct, unfortunately what matters in the (potential ? kinetic) energy to orbit. And that one is the real b*tch (female dog)
Long story short: delta-v is linear and decimal, but energy-to-orbit is exponential / logarithmic

Twenty percent of 9500 m/s is 1900 m/s; so, yes, Mach 3 removes 20% of the ascent delta-v. But the energy-to-orbit refuses to cooperate the same amount, because it is logarithmic / exponential. And thus, energy-wise, it is not a 20% gain but less than 10% or even worse.

Plotted on a curve, the energy-to-orbit rise smoothly until 6.5 km/s. And then the damn thing shoots vertically: exponentially. It is just crazy.

I think Wikipedia has that curve somewhere, I'll try to dug it out.

I use to say SSTO chemical rocketry starts falling appart at 6.5 km/s when our big and dense rocky planet called Earth mandates a 9.5 km/s ascent delta-v.
On the Moon or Mars smaller rocky bodies, no problem: 5 km/s to orbit Mars, and 2.5 km/s for the Moon. Chemical SSTO can handle that easily. But big planet Earth ? forget it, at least chemical SSTO.

Musk nailed it a few years ago. "We are living on the wrong planet for SSTO. Moon and Mars ? no problem."

 

[Byeman]

1. Not according to the Air Force and ARPA who both made the instructions on the needed modifications to the initial Saturn LV prior to launch. Again ABMA had to de-construct some of those modifications before the test flight.



2.Oddly the people who actually built the vehicle disagree with you as does the written and oral history. The Saturn was a "kludge" rocket that worked and worked very well.

3. I have to doubt the "50%" figure mostly because that's nowhere near what SpaceX shows and charges. Again, Vulcan/Centaur is cost effective in comparison as an expendable vehicle.


4. SpaceX uses the facilities left from Beal along with two test stands and one they rebuilt. Considering Falcon was assembled and tested there you've got a funny definition of "little applicable"? It saved SpaceX a lot of money according to Musk.

5. Incorrect, those duplications will still happen just like you see duplicate Marine groups on their bases. They have those separate bases already and the Air Force is tasking them with getting their own people in place as soon as possible. It's the "Space Force" not the "Space Command" which was supported and operated by the Air Force. That will no longer be the case and this was a major reason why very few people were 'happy' about having the Space Force established.

Ah so the Space Force according to you won't have any bases of their own? Odd since they already have several, all of which are actually CALLED "Space Force Base/Station", that means the Space Force will be the "host unit" which means handling the base and therefore having to supply it's own people to fill in the jobs there. No they most assuredly NOT "only operations" both by design and by requirement. The Air Force will ONLY be filling those positions on bases where THEY are the hosting command. As you say it will be "just like the Marines" who have to provide all those tasks on bases THEY own. Not sure where you're getting the information from as this is all readily available.

This is the major reason no one really WANTED a "Space Force" because it's going to be very expensive initially to actually get to the point where the Space Force is actually "stood up" and operational. The command and control that Space Command did is going to be only a very small part of what the Space Force actually does and it will end up needed all the infrastructure of any other branch, including all the needed personnel and infrastructure to run and maintain there own bases. And Frankly what's needed Space Command was already doing without all the ancillary and support functions that Space Force HAS to now do.

Wrong on a so many things.

1. Saturn was never a serious contender from an Air Force POV.. Project history states in Summer 1959 when down selecting the two airframe contractors: "While Boeing only considered an orbital Atlas-Centaur combination, Martin officials offered a suborbital Titan A (later renamed the Titan I) and an orbital Titan C. The board deemed the Boeing glider superior but also recommended use of Martin's orbital booster. "
2. wrong. you need to reread. No hardware laying around was used (except avionics). Tanks, engines and structure were purpose built. Name one component that was "scavenged" Never said it wasn't a kludge. Also the same people said that it was built from Jupiter and Redstone tanks (which is misleading).

3. I know from actual experience. I don't talk out my backside.

4. No, falcon is assembled in Hawthorne. Again, only concrete test stands and not out fitted. Simple CE work

5. No. It has been stated that Space Force will not duplicate tasks like medical, CE and security and will continue to use Air Force personnel indefinitely. Much like the Marines use the Navy for many support functions. (Naval Hospitals on Marine bases).

Patrick, Vandenberg, Cape Canaveral and Los Angeles Space Force bases (ones I have been to) all have Air Force personnel managing the bases. Space Force personnel only occupy space related positions like in launch and range squadrons.

from Patrick SFB website.

• Inactivate 45th Mission Support Group (subordinate units realigned under SLDs as direct report squadrons): The subordinate units, the Medical Group, the Comptroller Squadron and portions of the Space Launch Delta staff will remain units/organizations of the United States Air Force assigned to the Space Launch Deltas after the Space Launch Deltas change status from units of the United States Air Force to units of the United States Space Force armed force. The Mission Support Group 0-6 command position will be freed up by the inactivations and reallocated as the Space Launch Delta Vice Commander for Support, which will continue to be selected through the United States Air Force Group Command selection process.

Peterson SFB website

Headquartered at Peterson Space Force Base, Colorado, Space Base Delta 1 falls under the direction of Space Operations Command for its day-to-day operational missions, while it receives higher headquarters support for its base operations missions from Air Force Materiel Command as the Air Force servicing major command.

Go to a Space Force base website. Space operational units have space force.mil email addresses and support groups (CE, med, security, etc) still have af.mil addresses

 

[T. A. Gardner]

Carbon fiber is great for light aircraft and maybe ROV brackets.

For manned submersibles?
You can keep them.

That design had far more issues than just carbon fiber...

 

[Scott Kenny]

That design had far more issues than just carbon fiber...

Expired carbon fiber, you mean.

 

[Scott Kenny]

Except it doesn't work that way.

Bugger, corrected, thank you!

 

[T. A. Gardner]

Expired carbon fiber, you mean.

Well, that too. The true weakness was the fact that they put welded on flanges on each end that were at a 90 degree angle to the cylinder where the weld was made. All you needed was the cylinder to compress just a tiny bit and that weld to crack and it's all over.

 

[Scott Kenny]

Well, that too. The true weakness was the fact that they put welded on flanges on each end that were at a 90 degree angle to the cylinder where the weld was made. All you needed was the cylinder to compress just a tiny bit and that weld to crack and it's all over.

And just using carbon fiber in a compression application in general...

CF in compression is only as strong as the epoxy. CF in tension is immensely strong.

 

[publiusr]

In today's phys.org is an article about "A Potential New Design For Spacecraft Shields: Study finds under extreme impacts, metals get stronger when heated."

Cannon makers knew of this--and shot-peening is nothing new ---but it does help explain why SH survived the rock tornado.

Now, could an auxiliary turbopump and a rugged Sea Dragon build be had?

 

[Archibald]

Bugger, corrected, thank you!

Sorry I tend to be verbose and pedantic, but I'm fascinated by that stuff !

 

[Scott Kenny]

Sorry I tend to be verbose and pedantic, but I'm fascinated by that stuff !

In rocketry it's much better to be pedantic, so I greatly appreciate your corrections.

 

[Archibald]

Blame the Young Sheldon Cooper rocket nerd in me...

 

[Byeman]

In today's phys.org is an article about "A Potential New Design For Spacecraft Shields: Study finds under extreme impacts, metals get stronger when heated."

Cannon makers knew of this--and shot-peening is nothing new ---but it does help explain why SH survived the rock tornado.

Now, could an auxiliary turbopump and a rugged Sea Dragon build be had?

no, it has nothing to do with the rock tornado. SH survived because there was no spinning, just out flow.
What would make Sea Dragon more "rugged"? Nothing you suggested is new.
What is an "auxiliary" turbo pump?
You are just throwing crap against the wall and seeing if it sticks. This was already done decades ago.

 

[publiusr]

I was kidding about the rock tornado--never mind...

al.com reports "Former US Naval Secretary to lead Austal USA's Parent Company."

Secretary Richard Spencer has ties to Goldman Sachs, Austal's shipyard is in Mobile, Alabama, and Spencer is a Navy Man like Truax.

Hey buddy, ole' pal of mine...

 

[Byeman]

. Not sure where you're getting the information from as this is all readily available.

Yes, it is all available. I am getting straight from the sources (I support the Cape museum and also there are the base websites). Look at the management of all Space Force bases (Vandenberg, Patrick, Buckley, Peterson/Schriever, and Los Angeles). There is the commander and then the vice commander for operations, both Space Force. And there is a second vice commander for support, who is Air Force, who is responsible for "all base services, housing, personnel, logistics, emergency services, transportation, morale and recreation services, civil engineering, contracting, and security".

 

[rocketmaster]

Sea Dragon isn't new, it was conceived in the 1960's by Robert Truax at Aerojet in Sacramento, CA.
I worked with Truax building and testing his rocket hardware from 1973 until his death in 2010.
Ken Mason