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.
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.
This "giant torpedo" was a WWII unbuilt German design to hold a sea launched V2 #rocket. Note the small crewman near the bottom.
Quote from: JQP on 03/30/2018 10:42 amIt 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 QuoteThis "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/979629950666977280And 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.The actual benefits of ocean launch for a space launch system are1) 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.
Once you put the ICBM in a pod it's much less mobile and hence much more easy to find
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.
QuoteOnce you put the ICBM in a pod it's much less mobile and hence much more easy to findHow 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...
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."
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.
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…
I'm not a conspiracy nut, but this is the kind of thing that gets you disappeared by the DoD.
Because it is a terrible idea for all the reasons mentioned.
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.
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 developmenthttps://www.minutemanmissile.com/documents/SeaBasedDeploymentOfFloatingLaunchVehicles.pdf
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.
Quote from: Nick_Larcombe on 04/18/2018 02:59 pmHi 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.Hey Nick, brave to step into the cynic's den!There are bunch of US-based companies who have raised a lot of money recently. With PLD Space far ahead of the game in Europe, what's your plan to catch up and raise the money needed to fulfil your plans and beat those well-funded companies?
One of the bigger troubles we have atm is while many Non-Space VC's are interested in things they don't have the understanding or technical expertise to feel comfortable leading the round.
We are hoping to focus on operations (oceanic launch and refurbishment) and other rocket systems which are not receiving as much tech dev as engines. We figure the view is better from orbit rather than on the ground waiting for tech or additional resources to fully build in-house from the start.
Quote from: ringsider on 04/25/2018 06:01 pmHey Nick, brave to step into the cynic's den!
Hey Nick, brave to step into the cynic's den!
We are glad for every new launcher we see trying to reach the marketMore rockets mean more space missions. Go, humans!More trained and talented people with industry experience to hireA wider range of parts and suppliers to chose from.
The more rockets out there trying to launch means more people waiting for pads which makes our system shine even more.More rocket companies looking to us to help convert and run their oceanic ops when they get fed with land ops
I heard they went out of business years ago, but two subsidiaries took their place.
More on topic, it will interesting to see an aerospike nozzle operate on this size of launcher (or anysize for that matter :-).
We have been working on the sea serpent family for a little while now, one of the key things that draw us to oceanic rocketry is that it's much easier to scale up or down as needed.
Feel free to PM with any oceanic rocket data you might find.
As we are currently suffering a bad case of not being billionaires, we are able to move things around depending on resources and partners.
Everyone is building engines. While we have the goal of aerospike engine we at this point are looking to either build or buy engines depending on cash and time frames.
It's hard and full of unknowns but we are working towards the future in spite of that.
More questions?
On the engine side of things, I can already think of several possible sources in the US. Ursa Major comes to mind as the clearest option.
Quote from: Nick_Larcombe on 04/26/2018 07:50 amQuote from: ringsider on 04/25/2018 06:01 pmHey Nick, brave to step into the cynic's den!Yes, welcome, and thank you very much for being open to any questions here! It's a refreshing change that sets you apart from most other launch start-ups.Quote from: Nick_Larcombe on 04/26/2018 07:50 amWe are glad for every new launcher we see trying to reach the marketMore rockets mean more space missions. Go, humans!More trained and talented people with industry experience to hireA wider range of parts and suppliers to chose from.Quote from: Nick_Larcombe on 04/26/2018 07:50 amThe more rockets out there trying to launch means more people waiting for pads which makes our system shine even more.More rocket companies looking to us to help convert and run their oceanic ops when they get fed with land opsI have to say, that seems like a contradiction there. I agree with you that more launch companies means more parts and suppliers, which makes it better for all launch companies. But by the same logic lots of companies trying to launch from land should mean more pads get built, which makes it easier, not harder, for companies trying to launch from land.Maybe there's some reason you think that more customers means more suppliers of everything but pads?
I don't think its a contradiction but closer to factors at different rates. I think we can build ballast tanks faster then people can build launch pads and clear new ranges. Each new range will have its own issues while every time we build a ballast launch system we get better ( hopefully).
Where's Ripple?!