the sea dragon had a core diameter of 75 feet, if you built a can with a 75 dia and put a tub in it like the tub inside your close dryer and gave it a spin of 4-10 revolutions per minute you would have all the centrifical force created artifical gravity you would need for sleep chambers on a trip to mars. it would not be 1g but it would be more than enough to offset zero g effects enough on a 5-7 month voyage.
Actually after the rocket lifts from the water it tends to take a parabolic shape which directs the noise upwards instead of out. Once it gets a couple of hundered feet up though the sound is going to be rather awsome in every meaning of the word
Quote from: RanulfC on 11/26/2013 02:37 pmActually after the rocket lifts from the water it tends to take a parabolic shape which directs the noise upwards instead of out. Once it gets a couple of hundered feet up though the sound is going to be rather awsome in every meaning of the word Wouldn't the water absorb (not reflect) a lot of the acoustic energy? Also, if the focal point of your parabola is behind a supersonic rocket plume (or large grouping of convergent rocket plumes), seems like it would be hard for the rocket to acoustically destroy itself from the ground reflection. What am I missing?
Quote from: JasonAW3 on 12/20/2012 03:35 pm However; If this could be made as a reliable TSTO craft that either could have both stages reusable, OR the first stage reusable and use the upper stage as a .5 stage, (Doing Dry-for-wet) as part of either a space station or as a part of a Mars Exploration Vessel, then I think that it would more than justify the cost.No, it wouldn't. Reuseability negates the whole idea of Sea dragon. It is designed to be built cheap and robust, not for reuse. Also, return of huge stages is unthinkable
However; If this could be made as a reliable TSTO craft that either could have both stages reusable, OR the first stage reusable and use the upper stage as a .5 stage, (Doing Dry-for-wet) as part of either a space station or as a part of a Mars Exploration Vessel, then I think that it would more than justify the cost.
Quote from: go4mars on 01/10/2015 06:48 amQuote from: RanulfC on 11/26/2013 02:37 pmActually after the rocket lifts from the water it tends to take a parabolic shape which directs the noise upwards instead of out. Once it gets a couple of hundered feet up though the sound is going to be rather awsome in every meaning of the word Wouldn't the water absorb (not reflect) a lot of the acoustic energy? Also, if the focal point of your parabola is behind a supersonic rocket plume (or large grouping of convergent rocket plumes), seems like it would be hard for the rocket to acoustically destroy itself from the ground reflection. What am I missing? IIRC experiments showed that a water surface, (unlike sprayed) acts more like a solid object to heavy sound waves and you get very little absorbtion. I doubt you'd have to worry about acoustic's damaging the rocket given the way the exhaust plume is supposed to shape the water's surface the "focus" would be behind the rocket once the surface calmed from the rather awsome "bubble-burst" of the rocket breaking free in the first place.The only time the "parabolic" effect was mentioned that I recall was in dealing with the ROMBUS lift off which was done over an artifical lagoon for specifically acoustical reasons. The SeaDragon is going to create a huge gas bubble beneath it that will cause so much surface distortion thre a parabolic surface would never happen in the first place. I was talking more of the ROMBUS case than the SeaDragon case. Sorry if that wasn't clear.Randy
If you have any questions, there are a number of books I can recommend on acoustics and acoustical properties of various materials.
Quote from: JasonAW3 on 01/16/2015 07:05 amIf you have any questions, there are a number of books I can recommend on acoustics and acoustical properties of various materials.Yes please!Also, in your reply #223 on this thread, ...Bigelow modules within the tanks? I'm not following the rationale.
Hi,I just did comparaison photos of Sea Dragon to Saturn V and the F-1 engine, quite impressive. When you look at it and think of what you could do, it's awesome.
Quote from: b0objunior on 09/24/2015 10:51 pmHi,I just did comparaison photos of Sea Dragon to Saturn V and the F-1 engine, quite impressive. When you look at it and think of what you could do, it's awesome.Raptor makes me wonder if we'll ever see a giant engine - many smallish good ones has advantages.
Is it an idea that is done?
My guess is that sea-based launches are still worth exploring for a variety of reasons, but it only makes sense if the rocket is designed to be seaworthy. For example, there's a startup in Norway called Ripple Aerospace that aims to launch rockets that can be fabricated in Norwegian shipyards.https://rippleaerospace.com/