Author Topic: Ripple Aerospace  (Read 16484 times)

Offline vaporcobra

Ripple Aerospace
« on: 03/30/2018 06:16 am »
While they formed as a company barely two years ago, Ripple has begun (subscale) hardware testing. I had no clue they had a presence in the US, but they've begun testing a small prototype of their sea launch system, with the intent of testing the ballast tank disconnect in April 2018, about a mile off the coast of Florida.
https://www.facebook.com/ripple.space/posts/797210403822414

No doubt their aspirations are eons away from where they are today, but one can no longer call their work paper rocketry.

Quote
Ripple's Sea Serpent rocket class is mobile, reusable and scalable enabling a cost effective rocket which can be integrated into the global logistical network and provide payloads of varying sizes and mission profiles to customers.  Designed to be built in shipyards to utilize maritime manufacturing processes, Sea Serpent rockets will be massed produced to empower customers the ability to gain access to launch systems by means of Ripple's launch provider services or direct rocket ownership.
https://rippleaerospace.com

« Last Edit: 03/30/2018 06:17 am by vaporcobra »

Offline Steven Pietrobon

  • Member
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 39048
  • Adelaide, Australia
    • Steven Pietrobon's Space Archive
  • Liked: 32358
  • Likes Given: 8025
Re: Ripple Aerospace
« Reply #1 on: 03/30/2018 07:05 am »
Ripple was also here last year in Adelaide at the Australian Review meeting. I had a short chat with the Ripple Co-founder and President, who gave me his business card. His phone number is from Australia, so he must be based here! Its a small world. :-) He talked about the Agar 1 and Sea Serpent rocket. Ripple is based in Norway. Their website confirms they have a presence here in Australia.

https://rippleaerospace.com/about-us/

"The Sea Serpent team is comprised of a diverse group of rocket scientists, engineers, shipbuilders and space operators from companies in Norway, United States, and Australia with the unifying goal of developing Sea Serpent rockets."
« Last Edit: 03/30/2018 07:14 am by Steven Pietrobon »
Akin's Laws of Spacecraft Design #1:  Engineering is done with numbers.  Analysis without numbers is only an opinion.

Offline JQP

  • Member
  • Posts: 74
  • Liked: 11
  • Likes Given: 33
Re: Ripple Aerospace
« Reply #2 on: 03/30/2018 10:42 am »
It never occurred to me to have the SLBMs without the submarines, until now. Sea Launched Ballistic Missiles. But it makes perfect sense. Drop an ICBM in a tube into the deep ocean; when activated it rises to launch depth and fires. It's so obvious, I wonder why I've never read even a whisper about a concept like this…

The "Sea Serpent" stats say 2.6 metric tons into LEO. Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't that in the same neighborhood as Trident II payload?

This is a pretty great concept, not least because you don't need a launch facility and can launch from almost anywhere, to anywhere, with maximum efficiency.

It would also allow boomers to deploy ICBMs at a distance; drop the tube, get out of tactical nuke counterstrike radius, then fire. Or use a drone to send it well away from the sub before firing.

I'm not a conspiracy nut, but this is the kind of thing that gets you disappeared by the DoD. :)
« Last Edit: 03/30/2018 10:45 am by JQP »

Offline vaporcobra

Re: Ripple Aerospace
« Reply #3 on: 03/30/2018 04:40 pm »
It never occurred to me to have the SLBMs without the submarines, until now. Sea Launched Ballistic Missiles. But it makes perfect sense. Drop an ICBM in a tube into the deep ocean; when activated it rises to launch depth and fires. It's so obvious, I wonder why I've never read even a whisper about a concept like this…

The "Sea Serpent" stats say 2.6 metric tons into LEO. Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't that in the same neighborhood as Trident II payload?

This is a pretty great concept, not least because you don't need a launch facility and can launch from almost anywhere, to anywhere, with maximum efficiency.

100% coincidental, but I saw this posted yesterday evening on Twitter :)
Quote
This "giant torpedo" was a WWII unbuilt German design to hold a sea launched V2 #rocket. Note the small crewman near the bottom.
https://mobile.twitter.com/runnymonkey/status/979629950666977280

And I agree, sea-launched rockets have always been an intriguing concept. Being able to launch in international waters doesn't hurt, either.
« Last Edit: 03/30/2018 04:41 pm by vaporcobra »

Offline john smith 19

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10346
  • Everyplaceelse
  • Liked: 2426
  • Likes Given: 13596
Re: Ripple Aerospace
« Reply #4 on: 03/30/2018 05:56 pm »
It never occurred to me to have the SLBMs without the submarines, until now. Sea Launched Ballistic Missiles. But it makes perfect sense. Drop an ICBM in a tube into the deep ocean; when activated it rises to launch depth and fires. It's so obvious, I wonder why I've never read even a whisper about a concept like this…

The "Sea Serpent" stats say 2.6 metric tons into LEO. Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't that in the same neighborhood as Trident II payload?

This is a pretty great concept, not least because you don't need a launch facility and can launch from almost anywhere, to anywhere, with maximum efficiency.

100% coincidental, but I saw this posted yesterday evening on Twitter :)
Quote
This "giant torpedo" was a WWII unbuilt German design to hold a sea launched V2 #rocket. Note the small crewman near the bottom.
https://mobile.twitter.com/runnymonkey/status/979629950666977280

And I agree, sea-launched rockets have always been an intriguing concept. Being able to launch in international waters doesn't hurt, either.
Navies build ICBM subs because they are very difficult to detect.

You don't know exactly where they are.

Once you put the ICBM in a pod it's much less mobile and hence much more easy to find, negating the benefits of ocean basing in the first place.

The actual benefits of ocean launch for  a space launch  system are
1) Use an ocean going tug to tow it, rather than a ship to carry it.
2) In principle vehicle size is set by size of a ship yard you can build it in.
MCT ITS BFR SS. The worlds first Methane fueled FFSC engined CFRP SS structure A380 sized aerospaceplane tail sitter capable of Earth & Mars atmospheric flight.First flight to Mars by end of 2022 TBC. T&C apply. Trust nothing. Run your own #s "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof" R. Simberg."Competitve" means cheaper ¬cheap SCramjet proposed 1956. First +ve thrust 2004. US R&D spend to date > $10Bn. #deployed designs. Zero.

Offline JQP

  • Member
  • Posts: 74
  • Liked: 11
  • Likes Given: 33
Re: Ripple Aerospace
« Reply #5 on: 03/30/2018 06:21 pm »
Quote
Navies build ICBM subs because they are very difficult to detect.

The actual benefits of ocean launch for  a space launch  system are
1) Use an ocean going tug to tow it, rather than a ship to carry it.
2) In principle vehicle size is set by size of a ship yard you can build it in.
And you can launch from the equator, or wherever else you like, and get as much Atlantic/Pacific/Indian Ocean as you want to land stages in.

Quote
Once you put the ICBM in a pod it's much less mobile and hence much more easy to find

How so (genuinely curious)?

Revision 2.0, put a camouflaged portable "silo" on the sea floor. Orient it horizontally for better camouflage. The tube pops out horizontally and rises to launch depth, then the rocket is launched.

Edit:
Course now I'm wondering how to communicate with the weapon to tell it to fire...I know I've wondered about undersea communications before, and either didn't get very far last time I looked at it, or forgot the details...
« Last Edit: 03/31/2018 01:34 pm by JQP »

Offline john smith 19

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10346
  • Everyplaceelse
  • Liked: 2426
  • Likes Given: 13596
Re: Ripple Aerospace
« Reply #6 on: 03/31/2018 07:06 pm »
And you can launch from the equator, or wherever else you like, and get as much Atlantic/Pacific/Indian Ocean as you want to land stages in.
True.
Quote from: JQP
Quote
Once you put the ICBM in a pod it's much less mobile and hence much more easy to find

How so (genuinely curious)?
How are you moving this pod? Either you've got a sea going (surface) tug, which means you can be tracked on satellite, or you have a "sub tug" which don't actually exist outside of Frank Herberts novel "The Dragon in the Sea."

Quote from: JQP
Revision 2.0, put a camouflaged portable "silo" on the sea floor. Orient it horizontally for better camouflage. The tube pops out horizontally and rises to launch depth, then the rocket is launched.
Was (is?) a concept for some cruise missiles but is very tough to implement.
Quote from: JQP
Edit:
Course now I'm wondering how to communicate with the weapon to tell it to fire...I know I've wondered about undersea communications before, and either didn't get very far last time I looked at it, or forgot the details...
Basically if you have the tech to do this you have the tech to build full up ICBM subs to carry them anyway. It's one of those ideas that sounds clever but actually isn't.  :(

IIRC submarine comms is done mostly with Very Low Frequency radio. It needs huge antenna with huge power requirements but it reaches everywhere.  There has been talk of laser comms systems that can operate without the sub surfacing (so no sail to be detected by ASW aircraft on radar). The idea has been around for decades and DARPA had another go around 2010 but AFAIK no one's deployed it. 

MCT ITS BFR SS. The worlds first Methane fueled FFSC engined CFRP SS structure A380 sized aerospaceplane tail sitter capable of Earth & Mars atmospheric flight.First flight to Mars by end of 2022 TBC. T&C apply. Trust nothing. Run your own #s "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof" R. Simberg."Competitve" means cheaper ¬cheap SCramjet proposed 1956. First +ve thrust 2004. US R&D spend to date > $10Bn. #deployed designs. Zero.

Offline gongora

  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10183
  • US
  • Liked: 13845
  • Likes Given: 5915
Re: Ripple Aerospace
« Reply #7 on: 03/31/2018 09:23 pm »
This isn't a military site.  Less talk about deploying ICBMs, more talk about orbital launch.

Offline JQP

  • Member
  • Posts: 74
  • Liked: 11
  • Likes Given: 33
Re: Ripple Aerospace
« Reply #8 on: 03/31/2018 10:21 pm »
Quote
How are you moving this pod? Either you've got a sea going (surface) tug, which means you can be tracked on satellite, or you have a "sub tug" which don't actually exist outside of Frank Herberts novel "The Dragon in the Sea."

I was thinking stationary. I was asking about the other half of the statement; what is it about being stationary that amounts to "easily detected"? But if I was going to make it mobile, first thing I think of is self-propelled designs.

Offline edzieba

  • Virtual Realist
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6058
  • United Kingdom
  • Liked: 9274
  • Likes Given: 38
Re: Ripple Aerospace
« Reply #9 on: 04/03/2018 10:02 pm »
Rather than ICBMs, 'Sea Serpent' is a not-so-subtle allusion to the 'Sea Dragon' superheavy lift concept, which uses the same partially-immersed rollout and launch sequence, and even the distinctive 'stick out' engines partway up the stage.

Offline john smith 19

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10346
  • Everyplaceelse
  • Liked: 2426
  • Likes Given: 13596
Re: Ripple Aerospace
« Reply #10 on: 04/04/2018 07:15 am »
Rather than ICBMs, 'Sea Serpent' is a not-so-subtle allusion to the 'Sea Dragon' superheavy lift concept, which uses the same partially-immersed rollout and launch sequence, and even the distinctive 'stick out' engines partway up the stage.
True.

The question of wheather you can fire a rocket under water was answered by (IIRC) Aerojet with test firing off the Californian coast of an Aerobee sounding rocket they called the "Seabee." IIRC the start up was reported as quite smooth, partly because of the sea water in the combustion chamber. It was held vertical by a "sinker" chain which separated just before ignition.

Personally I quite like sea launch of a towed vehicle. It avoids range costs, can be launched right on the Equator (or pretty much any other Longitude), avoids launch pad construction and can make the rocket more or less as big as you like.

One thing that modern designs have (that Schnitt and Truax's designs did not) are designs for relatively simple (and hence cheap) positive displacement pumps, either compressed gas or combustion products powered. Likewise some machining methods have become a lot more cost effective.

So the challenge would be to build a big (but simple) pumped engine(s) and go from there.   
MCT ITS BFR SS. The worlds first Methane fueled FFSC engined CFRP SS structure A380 sized aerospaceplane tail sitter capable of Earth & Mars atmospheric flight.First flight to Mars by end of 2022 TBC. T&C apply. Trust nothing. Run your own #s "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof" R. Simberg."Competitve" means cheaper ¬cheap SCramjet proposed 1956. First +ve thrust 2004. US R&D spend to date > $10Bn. #deployed designs. Zero.

Offline Steven Pietrobon

  • Member
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 39048
  • Adelaide, Australia
    • Steven Pietrobon's Space Archive
  • Liked: 32358
  • Likes Given: 8025
Re: Ripple Aerospace
« Reply #11 on: 04/04/2018 07:29 am »
Of course, the idea of launching from water has been around for a long time. It was used to launch the Moonship in the classic film Frau Im Mond from 1929!

Akin's Laws of Spacecraft Design #1:  Engineering is done with numbers.  Analysis without numbers is only an opinion.

Offline chipguy

  • Member
  • Posts: 92
  • Ottawa Canada
  • Liked: 97
  • Likes Given: 30
Re: Ripple Aerospace
« Reply #12 on: 04/04/2018 04:42 pm »
It never occurred to me to have the SLBMs without the submarines, until now. Sea Launched Ballistic Missiles. But it makes perfect sense. Drop an ICBM in a tube into the deep ocean; when activated it rises to launch depth and fires. It's so obvious, I wonder why I've never read even a whisper about a concept like this…

Because it is a terrible idea for all the reasons mentioned. It was also a key plot point of several
episodes of the TV series "Voyage to the Bottom of the Sea" more than 50 years ago.

Quote
I'm not a conspiracy nut, but this is the kind of thing that gets you disappeared by the DoD. :)

They left Irwin Allen alone. Maybe he was too famous to disappear.

More on topic, it will interesting to see an aerospike nozzle operate on this size of launcher (or any
size for that matter :-).

Offline JQP

  • Member
  • Posts: 74
  • Liked: 11
  • Likes Given: 33
Re: Ripple Aerospace
« Reply #13 on: 04/04/2018 04:55 pm »
Quote
Because it is a terrible idea for all the reasons mentioned.

We never really got around to explaining any of those reasons. :)

Quote
The question of wheather you can fire a rocket under water was answered by (IIRC) Aerojet with test firing off the Californian coast of an Aerobee sounding rocket they called the "Seabee." IIRC the start up was reported as quite smooth, partly because of the sea water in the combustion chamber. It was held vertical by a "sinker" chain which separated just before ignition.

I always thought SLBMs were fired underwater, until this thread made me go look them up and I found out they are launched clear of the ocean by steam explosion.
« Last Edit: 04/04/2018 05:00 pm by JQP »

Offline Katana

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 378
  • Liked: 49
  • Likes Given: 20
Re: Ripple Aerospace
« Reply #14 on: 04/04/2018 05:12 pm »
It never occurred to me to have the SLBMs without the submarines, until now. Sea Launched Ballistic Missiles. But it makes perfect sense. Drop an ICBM in a tube into the deep ocean; when activated it rises to launch depth and fires. It's so obvious, I wonder why I've never read even a whisper about a concept like this…

The "Sea Serpent" stats say 2.6 metric tons into LEO. Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't that in the same neighborhood as Trident II payload?

This is a pretty great concept, not least because you don't need a launch facility and can launch from almost anywhere, to anywhere, with maximum efficiency.

It would also allow boomers to deploy ICBMs at a distance; drop the tube, get out of tactical nuke counterstrike radius, then fire. Or use a drone to send it well away from the sub before firing.

I'm not a conspiracy nut, but this is the kind of thing that gets you disappeared by the DoD. :)

HYDRA concept of Minuteman development

https://www.minutemanmissile.com/documents/SeaBasedDeploymentOfFloatingLaunchVehicles.pdf

Offline Asteroza

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2824
  • Liked: 1079
  • Likes Given: 32
Re: Ripple Aerospace
« Reply #15 on: 04/05/2018 05:34 am »
HYDRA concept of Minuteman development

https://www.minutemanmissile.com/documents/SeaBasedDeploymentOfFloatingLaunchVehicles.pdf

Wow, most of those deployment methods tend to be some variant of a drunken sailor yelling "YOLO" while kicking a launch container over the edge of the deck.

Offline john smith 19

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10346
  • Everyplaceelse
  • Liked: 2426
  • Likes Given: 13596
Re: Ripple Aerospace
« Reply #16 on: 04/05/2018 07:15 am »
HYDRA concept of Minuteman development

https://www.minutemanmissile.com/documents/SeaBasedDeploymentOfFloatingLaunchVehicles.pdf
I heard they went out of business years ago, but two subsidiaries took their place.  :D
MCT ITS BFR SS. The worlds first Methane fueled FFSC engined CFRP SS structure A380 sized aerospaceplane tail sitter capable of Earth & Mars atmospheric flight.First flight to Mars by end of 2022 TBC. T&C apply. Trust nothing. Run your own #s "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof" R. Simberg."Competitve" means cheaper ¬cheap SCramjet proposed 1956. First +ve thrust 2004. US R&D spend to date > $10Bn. #deployed designs. Zero.

Offline Nick_Larcombe

  • Member
  • Posts: 6
  • Earth
  • Liked: 32
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Ripple Aerospace
« Reply #17 on: 04/18/2018 02:59 pm »
Hi Everyone,

I'm Nick Larcombe the Ripple Co-founder and President that Steven spoke too.

Happy to answer some questions you all might have.

Please don't take our website details as set in stone, they are changing pretty quick these days.

Offline CameronD

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2372
  • Melbourne, Australia
    • Norton Consultants
  • Liked: 866
  • Likes Given: 548
Re: Ripple Aerospace
« Reply #18 on: 04/18/2018 11:39 pm »
Hi Everyone,

I'm Nick Larcombe the Ripple Co-founder and President that Steven spoke too.

Happy to answer some questions you all might have.

Please don't take our website details as set in stone, they are changing pretty quick these days.

Hi Nick - welcome to the forum!  :)

I have one question:  Do you have any plans to launch from Australia??
With sufficient thrust, pigs fly just fine - however, this is not necessarily a good idea. It is hard to be sure where they are
going to land, and it could be dangerous sitting under them as they fly overhead.

Offline Nick_Larcombe

  • Member
  • Posts: 6
  • Earth
  • Liked: 32
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Ripple Aerospace
« Reply #19 on: 04/19/2018 02:04 am »
Thanks!

I have one question:  Do you have any plans to launch from Australia??

Short answer: Yes

Longer answer: Our system enables launch from any ocean around the world which reduces delays and lowers infrastructure overhead.

Australia is very good geographically for a rocket launch, but the lack of launch infrastructure and regulatory hurdles have held people back. We expect the law to be brought up to the same level as other countries and Ripple does not need fixed launch infrastructure. Ripple is currently exploring options for Australian operations.

Tags:
 

Advertisement NovaTech
Advertisement Northrop Grumman
Advertisement
Advertisement Margaritaville Beach Resort South Padre Island
Advertisement Brady Kenniston
Advertisement NextSpaceflight
Advertisement Nathan Barker Photography
1